1: % =============================================================================

2: % =============================================================================

3: % =============================================================================

4: % =============================================================================

5: % START OF PAPER

6: % =============================================================================

7: % =============================================================================

8: % =============================================================================

9: % =============================================================================

10: 

11: \documentclass[12pt,letterpaper]{article}

12: 

13: \usepackage{paper2e}

14: \usepackage{mydefs2e}

15: \usepackage{xspace}

16: \usepackage{epsfig}

17: 

18: \newcommand{\Sla}[1]%

19: {\kern0.12em{\raise.15ex\hbox{$/$}\kern-.74em #1}}% Feynman slash

20: 

21: 

22: \newcommand{\LEW}{\Lambda_{\rm EW}}

23: \newcommand{\LUV}{\Lambda_{\rm UV}}

24: \newcommand{\LIR}{\Lambda_{\rm IR}}

25: \renewcommand{\d}{\partial}

26: 

27: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left\vert#1\right\vert}

28: \newcommand{\mean}[1]{\left\langle#1\right\rangle}

29: \newcommand{\spur}[1]{\mathord{\not\mathrel{#1}}}

30: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

31: \newcommand{\order}[1]{\scr{O}\left(#1\right)}

32: \newcommand{\Mpl}{M_{p\ell}}

33: \newcommand{\op}{\scr{O}}

34: 

35: 

36: \begin{document}

37: 

38: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

39: % Title page

40: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

41: \begin{titlepage}

42: \preprint{BUHEP-04-12\\

43: UMD-PP-05-017}

44: 

45: \title{Conformal Technicolor}

46: 

47: \author{Markus A. Luty$\,^{\rm a,b,c}$\ and\ Takemichi Okui$\,^{\rm b}$}

48: 

49: \address{$^{\rm a}$Physics Department, University of Maryland\\

50: College Park, Maryland 20742}

51: 

52: \address{$^{\rm b}$Physics Department, Boston University\\

53: Boston, Massachusetts 02215}

54: 

55: \address{$^{\rm c}$Jefferson Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University\\

56: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138}

57: 

58: \begin{abstract}

59: We point out that the flavor problem in theories with dynamical

60: electroweak symmetry breaking can be effectively decoupled if the physics above

61: the TeV scale is strongly conformal, and the electroweak order parameter

62: has a scaling dimension $d = 1 + \ep$ with $\ep \simeq 1/{\rm few}$.

63: There are many restrictions on small values of $\ep$:

64: for $\ep \ll 1$, electroweak symmetry breaking requires a fine-tuning

65: similar to that of the standard model;

66: large-$N$ conformal field

67: theories (including those obtained from the AdS/CFT correspondence)

68: require fine-tuning for $d < 2$;

69: `walking technicolor' theories cannot have $d < 2$, according to

70: gap equation analyses.

71: However, strong small-$N$ conformal field

72: theories with $\ep \simeq 1/{\rm few}$ avoid all

73: these constraints, and 

74: can give rise to natural dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking 

75: with a top quark flavor scale of order $10^{1/\ep}\TeV$, 

76: large enough to decouple flavor.

77: Small-$N$ theories also have an acceptably small Peskin-Takeuchi

78: $S$ parameter.

79: This class of theories provides

80: a new direction for dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking

81: without problems from flavor or electroweak precision tests.

82: A possible signal for these theories is a 

83: prominent scalar resonance below the

84: TeV scale with couplings similar to a heavy standard model Higgs.

85: \end{abstract}

86: 

87: 

88: \end{titlepage}

89: 

90: % ------------------------------------------------------------------

91: \section{Introduction}

92: \label{sec:intro}

93: % ------------------------------------------------------------------

94: How is electroweak symmetry broken?

95: The most important theoretical clue we have is the hierarchy problem,

96: the problem of understanding the smallness of the weak scale compared

97: to much higher scales in physics such as the Planck scale.

98: Perhaps the most elegant solution of the hierarchy problem is

99: dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking \cite{TC}.

100: This is the idea that the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking is

101: determined by a new strong interaction scale.

102: This naturally explains the smallness of the electroweak scale, since

103: the strong interaction scale is given in terms of UV quantities by

104: \beq[hierarchy]

105: \LEW \sim \LUV \, e^{-g_{\rm c}^2/g_{\rm UV}^2},

106: \eeq

107: where $g_{\rm UV}$ is the strength of the coupling in the UV

108: and $g_{\rm c} \sim 4\pi$ is the critical value where electroweak symmetry

109: is broken.

110: For $g_{\rm UV} < g_{\rm c}$, the electroweak scale is naturally exponentially

111: small compared to $\La_{\rm UV}$.

112: This mechanism is already realized in nature in the strong interaction

113: sector, explaining why the QCD scale is naturally small compared to

114: higher scales.

115: 

116: This paradigm for electroweak symmetry breaking makes the general prediction

117: that the electroweak symmetry breaking sector is strongly coupled at the

118: TeV scale.

119: Within a few years, the LHC will definitively settle the fundamental

120: question of whether electroweak

121: symmetry breaking sector is weakly or strongly coupled.

122: 

123: Until the LHC turns on, we must rely on indirect constraints.

124: Dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking

125: faces a number of potential difficulties.

126: First, strong interactions at the TeV scale

127: can ruin the agreement of the

128: standard model with precision electroweak data.

129: However, if the physics that breaks electroweak

130: symmetry is a strongly coupled theory with no large or small

131: parameters, `\naive dimensional analysis' (NDA) gives an estimate for the

132: Peskin-Takeuchi $S$ and $T$ parameters

133: \beq[STfromNDA]

134: S_{\rm NDA} \sim \frac{1}{\pi},

135: \qquad

136: T_{\rm NDA} \sim \frac{1}{4\pi}.

137: \eeq

138: For comparison,

139: the value of the $S$ parameter from scaled-up QCD is \cite{SQCD}

140: \beq

141: S_{\rm QCD} \sim 0.3.

142: \eeq

143: These are rough estimates,

144: and are comparable to the size of the current 95\% confidence

145: level bounds \cite{STbound}.

146: These do not rule out models of dynamical

147: electroweak symmetry breaking.

148: The models that \emph{are} ruled out (without fine tuning) are

149: those containing a large number $N$ of degrees of freedom,

150: in which $S \sim N / \pi$.

151: These include large `technicolor' or `walking technicolor' 

152: theories \cite{WTC},

153: and Randall-Sundrum (RS) models \cite{RS} with gauge fields in the 

154: bulk \cite{bulkgauge}, 

155: which are related to large-$N$ conformal theories (CFT's)

156: by the AdS/CFT correspondence \cite{AdSCFT}.

157: 

158: Another general problem with models of dynamical electroweak symmetry

159: breaking is that flavor is generally not decoupled from the TeV scale.

160: In technicolor models, this is because the order parameter

161: that breaks electroweak symmetry is a techni-fermion bilinear $\bar\psi \psi$

162: with mass dimension $d = 3$.

163: The standard-model fermion masses therefore arise from 4-fermion operators

164: connecting the standard model fermions with the technifermions \cite{ETC}.

165: These operators have dimension 6, and therefore become strong at low scales.

166: In particular the top coupling becomes strong at a scale

167: \beq

168: \hbox{\rm QCD-like technicolor:}\ \ \ 

169: \La_t \sim \LEW \left(\frac{\LEW}{m_t}\right)^{1/2} \sim 5 \TeV,

170: \eeq

171: where $\LEW \sim 4 \pi v \sim 2 \TeV$ is the scale where the electroweak

172: symmetry breaking sector becomes strongly coupled.

173: $\La_t$ is the scale where flavor must be addressed in these models.

174: 

175: The flavor problem is less severe in models of `walking' technicolor,

176: in which it is assumed that the electroweak order parameter $\bar\psi \psi$

177: has a large anomalous dimension, and scales as an operator

178: with dimension $d = 3 - \ga$ \cite{WTC}.

179: Walking technicolor theories are similar to a CFT with a nearly marginal

180: (slightly relevant) operator

181: that runs slowly and becomes strong and breaks electroweak symmetry.

182: Analyses based on the truncated Schwinger-Dyson equations show that

183: in asymptotically free theories, $d \ge 2$ \cite{WTC,CG}.

184: The scale where the top coupling becomes strong is then raised for $d=2$ to

185: \beq

186: \hbox{\rm Walking technicolor:}\ \ \ 

187: \La_t \lsim \LEW \, \frac{\LEW}{m_t} \sim 10 \TeV.

188: \eeq

189: Attempts to make realistic models based on strong top dynamics can be found

190: in \Refs{strongtop}.

191: In this paper, we will instead attempt to avoid strong flavor-dependent

192: dynamics at low scales.

193: 

194: A simple way to avoid the restriction $d \ge 2$ is to assume that the theory

195: is at an interacting conformal fixed point above the TeV scale.

196: This class of theories offers a solution of the hierarchy problem that

197: is identical to asymptotically free theories such as technicolor.

198: If the CFT is coupled to a gauge theory that is asymptotically free,

199: this gauge theory will become strong in the IR, causing the CFT to

200: flow away from its fixed point.%

201: %

202: \footnote{The same mechanism was employed for walking technicolor theories in

203: \Ref{PMTC}, where the QCD gauge coupling plays the role of the asymptotically

204: free gauge group.

205: This mechanism na\"\i{}vely predicts $\La_{\rm EW} \sim \La_{\rm QCD}$,

206: and we do not consider it here.}

207: %

208: The resulting non-perturbative dynamics can give rise to electroweak

209: symmetry breaking.

210: Another possibility is that the CFT contains a nearly marginal operator

211: that becomes strong in the IR.

212: These mechanisms are attractive because it generates an exponentially

213: large hierarchy.

214: Another possible mechanism exists if the CFT has a relevant operator that

215: transforms nontrivially under a global symmetry, \eg a discrete symmetry.

216: The coefficient of this operator can then be naturally small, and can set

217: the scale for the breaking of conformal and electroweak symmetry.

218: In this mechanism, the large hierarchy is put in by hand in the form of a

219: small coefficient, but it is technically natural.

220: 

221: In a strong CFT, flavor arises from couplings of the form $\bar{q} q \scr{O}$,

222: where $q$ is a standard-model fermion and $\scr{O}$ is a CFT operator

223: with quantum numbers of the Higgs.

224: In order to decouple flavor, we would like to have the scaling dimension

225: $d$ of the operator $\scr{O}$ as small as possible.

226: In CFT's, bound on the scaling dimension of a scalar

227: operator is $d \ge 1$ \cite{mack}.

228: In the limit $d \to 1$, the scalar operator behaves as a weakly-coupled scalar

229: field, which is just the standard-model Higgs.

230: The theory is therefore fine-tuned and does not solve the hierarchy problem.

231: However, for $d = 1 + \ep$, with $\ep \simeq 1/\hbox{\rm few}$,

232: the top quark becomes strongly

233: coupled at the scale

234: \beq[topmassscaling]

235: \hbox{\rm Conformal dynamics:}\ \ \ 

236: \La_t \sim \LEW \left( \frac{\LEW}{m_t} \right)^{1/\ep}.

237: \eeq

238: This scale is {\it exponentially} large for small $\ep$, and therefore we

239: can plausibly have sufficiently large $\ep$ to avoid fine-tuning, while

240: decoupling the flavor to high scales.

241: How $\La_t$ must be to avoid flavor-changing neutral currents

242: depends on the nature of flavor violation at this scale.

243: The most pessimistic case imaginable is that there are

244: unsuppressed strong contributions to operators that

245: contribute to $K$--$\bar{K}$ mixing at the scale $\La_t$.

246: This requires $\La_t \sim 10^5\TeV$, which is obtained for

247: $\ep \simeq \frac 15$.

248: If we assume some suppression of flavor violation for the

249: lightest generation, we expect that the flavor scale can be significantly

250: lower.

251: For example, a single Yukawa suppression of four-fermion operators

252: contributing to $K$--$\bar{K}$ mixing lowers the flavor scale to

253: $\La_t \sim 3 \times 10^{3} \TeV$, which requires $\ep \simeq \frac 13$.

254: Such values of $\ep$ are definitely plausible.

255: For example, in F-theory constructions of AdS$_5$ duals, one finds scalar

256: operators with dimension % $\frac 32$,

257: $\frac 43$ and $\frac 65$ \cite{Maldacena}.

258: The possible application of non-supersymmetric CFT's with low-dimension scalar

259: operators to the electroweak

260: hierarchy problem was also discussed in \Ref{strasslerCFT}.

261: 

262: The Randall-Sundrum model gives an explicit example of a 4D CFT, and

263: has been extensively discussed as a solution of the hierarchy problem.

264: In this model, the Higgs is usually localized in the the IR brane 

265: to obtain a large hierarchy.

266: In this case the Higgs field can be thought of as a bulk field with 

267: a large mass, 

268: and in the corresponding 4D interpretation the electroweak order 

269: parameter has a large ($d > 4$) scaling dimension.%

270: %

271: \footnote{By analogy to `walking technicolor,' this can be

272: thought of as `speeding technicolor.'}

273: %

274: To obtain sufficiently large fermion masses, the fermions are put on the IR

275: brane or in the bulk \cite{bulkfermions}.

276: In 4D language, this corresponds to generating fermion masses by making them

277: mix with composite fermions so that they can feel the symmetry breaking

278: in the strong sector.

279: The mixing of the standard-model fermions with composite fermions

280: was considered previously in the context of QCD-like 

281: technicolor \cite{Kaplan}.

282: Theories of this type are interesting alternatives to our scenario.  As we 

283: discuss in the appendix, these theories generally have a potentially

284: viable region of the 

285: parameter space where $\De\rho$ is just at the current experimental bound  

286: while corrections to $Z\to b\bar{b}$ require fine-tuning at the $10\%$ level 

287: \cite{Hopkins}. 

288: However, we will pursue scenarios where the standard-model fermions are 

289: completely elementary, just like in conventinal technicolor theories.

290: 

291: It is a simple matter to modify the RS model to give the electroweak

292: order parameter a smaller dimension:

293: one simply puts a Higgs scalar in the bulk, and leaves the fermions on the

294: UV brane.

295: Electroweak symmetry is broken by a Higgs potential localized on the IR 

296: brane (ensuring that this is an IR effect) and the bulk Higgs field communicates

297: electroweak symmetry breaking to the fermions on the UV brane.

298: Taking the Higgs bulk mass parameter to be negative makes the dimension of the

299: Higgs operator in the 4D CFT description smaller.

300: However, we will show that scalar operators with $d < 2$ are fine-tuned in RS.

301: This can be traced to the fact that RS is a large-$N$ theory, 

302: and this fine-tuning is common to all large-$N$ theories.

303: 

304: We are therefore led to a rather dark corner of theory space:

305: non-supersymmetric 4D strongly-coupled conformal field theories with small $N$.

306: These can have a scalar operator with dimension $d=1+\epsilon$

307: with $\ep \sim 1/\hbox{\rm few}$, and can dynamically break electroweak

308: symmetry at the TeV scale while giving large fermion masses without

309: flavor-changing neutral currents.  Small-$N$ theories also have an acceptably

310: small $S$ parameter. Not much is known about the dynamics of such theories,

311: and so our discussion of these theories is necessarily speculative.

312: Above the TeV scale, the theory becomes conformally invariant, and the new

313: strong conformal dynamics can be directly tested in direct analogy with the

314: way QCD is tested at a high-energy $e^+ e^-$ collider.%

315: %

316: \footnote{See \Ref{cftee} for a supersymmetric example.}

317: %

318: However, even the LHC will be limited to exploring the lightest `hadrons'

319: of the CFT, and it is not possible to make rigorous

320: predictions for this regime.

321: In the case where $\ep$ arises from a (moderately) small parameter in

322: the fundamental theory, we argue that 

323: %However, we believe that some general statements can be made using the

324: %fact that $\ep \to 0$ is a weak-coupling limit, and from extrapolating

325: %the AdS/CFT correspondence (which is limited to large $N$).

326: %The picture that emerges is that

327: the theory contains a prominent

328: scalar resonance near (but somewhat below) the TeV scale, with couplings

329: similar to those of a heavy standard-model Higgs, but deviating from

330: the standard-model couplings by order $\ep$. 

331: This provides an interesting and well-motivated

332: signal to look for at the LHC, whose observation

333: would clearly motivate going to even higher energies in the future.

334: %In a limited sense, 

335: %this scalar resonance can be thought of as a `partially' 

336: %composite Higgs.

337: 

338: This paper is organized as follows.

339: In section 2, we review the constraints on the operator dimension $d$

340: in various types of known models

341: and argue that small-$N$ theories avoid all constraints

342: and can have $d < 2$ without fine tuning.

343: In section 3, we study the phenomenology of these theories,

344: focusing mainly on the possibility of a Higgs-like scalar resonance. 

345: Section 4 contains our conclusions.

346: 

347: % ------------------------------------------------------------------

348: \section{Scalar Operators with $1 < d < 2$}

349: \label{sec:scalarop}

350: % ------------------------------------------------------------------

351: As discussed in the introduction, an important question for models

352: of dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking based on conformal field

353: theory is the scaling dimension $d$

354: of the `Higgs' operator $\scr{O}$ that acts as the electroweak order parameter.

355: In order to decouple flavor, we would like to have $d$ as small

356: as possible, while avoiding fine-tuning.

357: In this section we review what is known about low-dimension scalar operators,

358: and argue that

359: theories with strong coupling and small $N$ can give operators with

360: $d < 2$ without fine tuning. 

361: 

362: % --------------------------------------------------------------------

363: \subsection{$d \simeq 1$}

364: General theorems of conformal field theory tell us that a scalar

365: operator $\scr{O}$ must have dimension $d \ge 1$ \cite{mack}.

366: Furthermore, an operator with dimension $d = 1$ is a

367: free field (meaning that correlation functions of $\scr{O}$

368: are the same as those of a free field).

369: It is therefore clear that for $d$ sufficiently close to 1, the theory is

370: equivalent to a CFT weakly coupled to a Higgs

371: field, which clearly does not solve the hierarchy problem.

372: In CFT language, this is because the operator

373: $\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$ has dimension close to $2d$,

374: which is relevant for $d < 2$.

375: The existence of a relevant operator that cannot be forbidden by

376: symmetries means that the fixed point is not reached unless the

377: coefficient of the relevant operator is tuned.

378: This argument seems to suggest that the theory is fine-tuned for any

379: $d < 2$, but it is limited to weak coupling because we have assumed

380: that the dimension of $\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$ is approximately $2d$.

381: Since the anomalous dimension $d-1$ is of order a one-loop factor, we expect 

382: the anomalous dimension of $\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$ to also be of order 

383: $d - 1$ for a weakly-coupled theory with $d - 1 \ll 1$.

384: But for strong coupling the operator $\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$ will have

385: a large anomalous dimension, and its dimension will not have any

386: simple relation to the dimension of $\scr{O}$.%

387: %

388: \footnote{In fact, for a strong CFT the operator ``$\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$''

389: has no {\it a priori} meaning.

390: The remarks above apply if we define $\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$

391: to be the operator of lowest scaling dimension in

392: the operator product expansion of $\scr{O} \times \scr{O}^\dagger$ other

393: than the unit operator.}

394: %

395: Exceptions to this are large-$N$ theories, as we will discuss below. 

396: 

397: How small can we take $\ep = d - 1$?

398: In a nearly free theory with an elementary scalar, $\ep$ is an

399: anomalous dimension, which is of order a loop-counting factor in the

400: theory.

401: In other words, perturbation theory is an expansion in powers of

402: $\ep$, and we expect it to break down when $\ep \gsim 1$.

403: For values like $\ep = 1/{\rm few}$, perturbation theory is no longer

404: a reliable guide.

405: In these theories, it is possible that the operator $\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$

406: has a sufficiently large anomalous dimension to make it an irrelevant operator.

407: We conclude that the general theorem does not

408: imply that theories with $\ep \sim 1/{\rm few}$ are fine-tuned.

409: 

410: 

411: % --------------------------------------------------------------------

412: \subsection{Large-$N$ Theories}

413: We now consider large-$N$ CFT's.

414: In large-$N$ theories, the matrix elements of operators 

415: factorize, % \cite{factorize},

416: and we can conclude that the operator $\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$ has

417: dimension

418: near $2d$ (up to $1/N$ corrections) even if the theory is strongly

419: coupled.  This is true even for theories with a large 't Hooft parameter, 

420: such as the 4D dual of the Randall-Sundrum (RS) model, as we will discuss 

421: below.

422: The operator $\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$ is therefore relevant for

423: all $d < 2$,

424: and we conclude that large-$N$ CFT's with

425: scalar operators with $d < 2$ are fine-tuned.

426: 

427: Large-$N$ theories are also disfavored as a dynamical electroweak symmetry

428: breaking sector because they give contributions to the $S$ parameter

429: that grow with $N$.  In theories with a small 't Hooft parameter,

430: this is simply because $S$ arises from a vacuum polarization effects

431: that count the number of microscopic states.

432: We will see that RS models, which have a large 't Hooft parameter, also 

433: predict large $S$ in the absence of fine-tuning.

434: 

435: For these reasons, we are led to consider theories that do not

436: have large $N$, and which cannot be obtained from RS

437: setup.

438: 

439: % --------------------------------------------------------------------

440: \subsection{QCD-like Theories}

441: $SU(N)$ gauge theories with $F$ flavors of Dirac fermions loses asymptotic

442: freedom for $F/N > \frac{11}{2}$, and for $F/N = \frac{11}{2} - \de$

443: with $\de \ll 1$

444: the theory has a weakly coupled `Banks-Zaks' fixed point \cite{BZ}.

445: This allows us to infer the existence of QCD-like theories that

446: flow to strongly coupled CFT's in the IR.

447: The loop expansion parameter at the Banks-Zaks fixed point is $\de$,

448: so we know there is a conformal window for a range of $\de$.

449: The conformal window ends at some value $\de \sim 1$, and the CFT's

450: at this end of the conformal window are necessarily strongly coupled.

451: Although this argument is strictly speaking limited to large $N$

452: (where $\de$ can be thought of as a continuous parameter),

453: it is very reasonable to assume that there are also small-$N$

454: asymptotically free gauge theories that flow to strong conformal

455: fixed points.

456: 

457: It is therefore natural to ask whether theories of this kind can

458: give rise to a conformal sector with scalar operators with $d < 2$.

459: To obtain a tractable approximation to the non-perturbative dynamics

460: of QCD-like theories, it is traditional to truncate the Schwinger-Dyson

461: equations by replacing the full gauge

462: propagator and gauge-fermion vertices by their tree-level values in the 

463: Landau gauge, giving rise to the so-called `gap equation.' % \cite{gapequ}.

464: However, this limits the parameterization of the non-perturbative

465: effects to spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking via

466: a dynamically generated `constituent quark mass.'

467: In particular, it is not able to describe the conformal fixed point

468: dynamics of the Banks-Zaks fixed point.

469: 

470: The conformal window was studied using the gap equation in \Ref{conformgap},

471: which concluded that the conformal window in QCD ends at $N_f \simeq 4 N_c$.

472: It would be very interesting to further

473: explore non-perturbative approximations

474: to QCD-like theories that can capture the physics of the perturbative

475: end of the conformal window and model the non-perturbative dynamics

476: at the strong end of the conformal window.

477: This is beyond

478: the scope of the present work.

479: 

480: 

481: % --------------------------------------------------------------------

482: % --------------------------------------------------------------------

483: \subsection{$d$ in Randall-Sundrum Models}

484: \label{subsec:dRS}

485: 

486: We now consider the Randall-Sundrum (RS) model,

487: which gives us a concrete, calculable CFT.

488: To make the connection to conformal field theory as

489: transparent as possible, it is 

490: convenient to write the 5D AdS metric as

491: \beq

492:    ds^2 = \mu^2 \eta_{\mu\nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu - \frac{1}{k^2} \frac{d\mu^2}{\mu^2},

493: \eeq

494: where $k$ is the AdS curvature,

495: and $\mu_{\rm IR} \le \mu \le \mu_{\rm UV}$ 

496: parameterizes the extra dimension.

497: The fact that this metric is invariant under the transformation, 

498: $x^\mu \to s^{-1} x^\mu$ and $\mu \to s\mu$, naturally leads to the 

499: interpretation that the parameter $\mu$ is proportional to the energy scale in 

500: the corresponding 4D CFT.

501: We assume that all dimensionful quantities in the 5D lagrangian are $\order{1}$

502: in units of $k$.

503: The physical size of dimensionful couplings at a position $\mu$ in the bulk

504: is then given by $k\mu$.

505: For simplicity, we will use units where $k = 1$.

506: 

507: We consider a 5D complex

508: scalar doublet $H$ with bulk mass $M$.

509: We will be interested in the situation where $H$ gets a VEV, breaking

510: an $SU(2)_L$ gauge symmetry.%

511: %

512: \footnote{We will ignore $U(1)_Y$ in this section for simplicity.  We will 

513: also ignore an $SU(2)_R$ gauge symmetry we need to put in the bulk for 

514: any realistic model to guarantee a custodial $SU(2)$ symmetry in the 4D CFT.

515: Adding these complications is straightforward and does not alter our 

516: conclusions.}

517: %

518: It is therefore convenient to parameterize the field by

519: \beq[HPhiPidefn]

520: H = e^{i\Pi_a \tau_a} \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \Phi \end{array} \right),

521: \eeq

522: where $\Phi$ and $\Pi_a$ ($a = 1,2,3$) are real fields.

523: When $\Phi$ gets a VEV, the zero mode of $\Pi_a$ parameterizes the Goldstone

524: degrees of freedom.

525: In this section, we are interested in the effects of the VEV, and so

526: we will mainly concentrate on the field $\Phi$.

527: Solving the equation of motion in the bulk,  

528: we obtain the most general 4D Poincare invariant solution:

529: \beq[Phisoln]

530: \Phi = A \mu^{n - 4} + B \mu^{-n}

531: \eeq

532: where $n \equiv 2 + \sqrt{4 + M^2}$.  

533: We restrict attention to masses satisfying the 

534: Breitenlohner-Freedman bound $M^2 \ge -4$ \cite{BFbound}, so that $n \ge 2$.

535: For the special case $n = 2$, the general solution is

536: \beq[Phisolnmod]

537: \Phi = \tilde{A} \mu^{-2} + \tilde{B} \mu^{-2} \ln\mu.

538: \eeq

539: We will focus on the generic case \eq{Phisoln} below.

540: 

541: 

542: We now discuss the CFT interpretation of the solution \Eqs{Phisoln}

543: for $n > 2$.

544: According the the AdS/CFT correspondence, the field $\Phi$

545: is associated with an operator $\scr{O}$ of the 4D CFT.

546: As we will review below, in the conventional case the operator $\scr{O}$

547: has dimension $d = n$, which implies $d \ge 2$.

548: To obtain a 4D CFT with $d < 2$, we must change the UV boundary 

549: condition \cite{Witten}.

550: Specifically, we must choose the UV boundary condition to set $B = 0$,

551: so that the IR boundary condition determines $A$.

552: This can be done by adding a UV boundary lagrangian

553: \beq

554: \scr{L}_{\rm UV} = -m |H|^2 = -m \Phi^2 .

555: \eeq

556: The UV boundary condition is then

557: \beq

558: \left[ \mu \frac{\d\Phi}{\d\mu} + m \Phi \right]_{\rm UV} &= 0,

559: \\

560: \eql{PiUVbdy}

561: \left. \mu \frac{\d\Pi_a}{\d\mu} \right|_{\rm UV} &= 0,

562: \eeq

563: which gives

564: \beq[UVboundary]

565: (n - 4 + m) A \mu_{\rm UV}^{n - 4} = (n - m) B \mu_{\rm UV}^{-n}.

566: \eeq

567: The generic solution is $A/B \sim \mu_{\rm UV}^{4 - 2n}$, but we can

568: tune $B = 0$ by taking

569: \beq[tunedmass]

570: m = 4 - n.

571: \eeq

572: Note that we are tuning a relevant operator that cannot be forbidden by

573: symmetries.

574: 

575: We now specify the IR boundary conditions.

576: We assume that the IR boundary conditions set

577: \beq

578: \eql{PhiIRbdy}

579: \left. \Phi \right|_{\rm IR} &= \ka,

580: \\

581: \eql{PiIRbdy}

582: \left. \mu \frac{\d \Pi_a}{\d\mu} \right|_{\rm IR} &= 0.

583: \eeq

584: This can be viewed as the result of adding an $SU(2)$ invariant

585: IR potential of the form

586: \beq

587: V_{\rm IR} = \frac{\la}{2} (|H|^2 - \ka^2)^2

588: \eeq

589: and taking the limit $\la \to \infty$ so that the radial component of the 

590: field is frozen.

591: (Note that the boundary conditions \Eqs{PiUVbdy} and \eq{PiIRbdy}

592: ensure that the fields $\Pi_a$ each have a massless Goldstone zero mode.)

593: The results for the coefficients $B$ and $A$ are then

594: \beq

595: B = 

596: \begin{cases}

597: \ka \mu_{\rm IR}^n \left[ 1 + \scr{O} \left(

598: \left( \mu_{\rm IR} /\mu_{\rm UV} \right)^{2n - 4}

599: \right) \right]

600: & \ {\rm `generic'} \cr

601: 0 \vphantom{\Bigl[}

602: & \ \,{\rm tuned} \cr

603: \end{cases}

604: \eeq

605: and

606: \beq

607: A =

608: \begin{cases}

609: \displaystyle

610: \frac{n - m}{n - 4 + m} B \mu_{\rm UV}^{4 - 2n}

611: & \ {\rm `generic'} \cr

612: \ka \mu_{\rm IR}^{4 - n}

613:  \vphantom{\Bigl[}

614: & \ \,{\rm tuned} \cr

615: \end{cases}

616: \eeq

617: 

618: Now suppose that the VEV for the field $\Phi$ spontaneously breaks an

619: $SU(2)$ gauge symmetry in the bulk

620: and generates a mass for a fermion localized on the UV brane.

621: This is the RS description of breaking the gauge symmetry by the 

622: VEV of the operator $\scr{O}$ and giving mass to an elementary fermion

623: coupling to $\scr{O}$.

624: The 4D gauge boson mass is

625: \beq[gaugemassRS]

626: m_W^2 &= \frac{g_4^2}{2} \int_{\mu_{\rm IR}}^{\mu_{\rm UV}} d\mu\,

627: \mu \, \Phi^2

628: \\

629: &=

630: \begin{cases}

631: \displaystyle\vphantom{\Biggl[}

632: \frac{g_4^2 \ka^2}{4(n - 1)} \mu_{\rm IR}^2 \left[

633: 1 + \scr{O}\left( \left( \mu_{\rm IR} / \mu_{\rm UV} \right)^{2n - 4} \right)

634: \right]

635: & \ {\rm `generic'} \cr

636: \displaystyle\vphantom{\Biggl[}

637: \frac{g_4^2 \ka^2}{4(3 - n)} \mu_{\rm IR}^2 \left[

638: 1 - \left( \mu_{\rm IR} / \mu_{\rm UV} \right)^{6 - 2n}

639: \right]

640: & \ \,{\rm tuned} \cr

641: \end{cases}

642: \eeq

643: where $g_4$ is the gauge coupling of the 4D gauge zero mode.

644: In the tuned case with $n > 3$, the gauge boson mass grows large as 

645: $\mu_{\rm UV}$ increases, so $m_W$ is sensitive to the UV scale.

646: The physical interpretation of this case is that the gauge

647: symmetry is broken in the UV, not in the IR. This means that this case does 

648: {\it not} describe dynamical symmetry breaking.  Therefore, we will restrict 

649: to $n<3$ in the rest of the paper.  However, note that even if $n<3$, 

650: taking the $n \to 3$ limit in the tuned case leads to

651: \beq[tunedmW]

652: m_W^2 \to \frac12 g_4^2\ka^2\mu_{\rm IR}^2 \ln\left( \mu_{\rm UV} / \mu_{\rm IR}

653: \right),

654: \eeq

655: so the gauge boson mass is logarithmically sensitive to the UV.

656: We will discuss the 4D interpretation of the logarithm shortly.

657: 

658: Now consider fermions, a doublet $Q$ and a singlet $t^c$ localized on 

659: the UV brane.

660: We add the UV boundary term

661: \beq[UVbdyferm]

662: \De\scr{L}_{\rm UV} = \mu_{\rm UV}^{-1}

663: \left[ \bar{Q} i \Sla{D} Q + \bar{t^c}\sla{\del}t^c \right] 

664: - \left[ y_t H Q t^c + \hc \right] ,

665: \eeq

666: where the factor $\mu_{\rm UV}^{-1}$ multiplying the kinetic term arises

667: from the conformal factor in the metric.

668: The fermion mass is therefore

669: \beq

670: m_t &= y_t \ka \mu_{\rm UV} \Phi_{\rm UV}

671: \\

672: &= 

673: \begin{cases}

674: \displaystyle\vphantom{\Biggl[}

675: \frac{2n - 4}{n - 4 + m}\,

676: y_t \ka \mu_{\rm IR}

677: \left( \mu_{\rm IR} / \mu_{\rm UV} \right)^{n - 1}

678: & \ {\rm `generic'} \cr

679: \displaystyle\vphantom{\Bigl[}

680: y_t \ka \mu_{\rm IR} \left( \mu_{\rm IR} / \mu_{\rm UV} \right)^{3 - n}

681: & \ \,{\rm tuned} \cr

682: \end{cases}

683: \eeq

684: We therefore obtain

685: \beq

686: \frac{m_t}{m_W} \sim

687: \begin{cases}

688: \displaystyle\vphantom{\Biggl[}

689: \left( \frac{\mu_{\rm IR}}{\mu_{\rm UV}} \right)^{n - 1}

690: & \ {\rm `generic'} \cr

691: \displaystyle\vphantom{\Biggl[}

692: \left( \frac{\mu_{\rm IR}}{\mu_{\rm UV}} \right)^{3 - n}

693: & \ \,{\rm tuned} \cr

694: \end{cases}

695: \eeq

696: 

697: In the 4D CFT, the UV boundary term \Eq{UVbdyferm} corresponds to coupling

698: an elementary fermion to the CFT operator $\scr{O}$:

699: \beq

700: \De\scr{L}_{\rm CFT} = c_t \scr{O} Q t^{\rm c} + \hc

701: \eeq

702: The results for the fermion and gauge boson masses are therefore

703: consistent with the 4D interpretation that

704: $\scr{O}$ has scaling dimension

705: \beq

706: d = 

707: \begin{cases}

708: n & \ {\rm `generic'} \cr

709: 4 - n & \ \,{\rm tuned} \cr

710: \end{cases}

711: \eeq

712: In the tuned case, recall that we require $n < 3$ to avoid breaking the

713: gauge symmetry in the UV.

714: At the critical value $n = 3$ \Eq{tunedmW} shows that we have

715: logarithmic UV sensitivity.

716: This is easy to understand.

717: The effective lagrangian at the IR scale has the form

718: \beq

719: \scr{L}_{\rm eff} = Z |D_\mu h|^2 - V(h) 

720: + \left[ y_t h Q t^c + \hc \right],

721: \eeq

722: where $h$ is the lightest KK mode of the scalar.

723: The logarithm in \Eq{tunedmW} reflects the fact that the wavefunction

724: factor $Z$ depends logarithmically on the UV scale,

725: because in the $n\to 3$ (\ie $d\to 1$) limit $h$ is just a weakly-coupled 

726: scalar.

727: (Note that $g$ and $\ka$ are quantities defined at the IR scale.)

728: There is no logarithm in $m_t$ as $n \to 3$ because the fermion Yukawa

729: coupling is not renormalized (apart from the wavefunction renormalization

730: in $Z$) within our approximation of treating $Qt^c$ as a 

731: background field.

732: We therefore conclude that the tuned case can indeed describe operators 

733: with dimension $1 < d < 2$.

734: 

735: Now we study how much fine tuning is actually necessary to reach the tuned 

736: case.

737: If we deviate from the fine-tuning condition \eq{tunedmass} by 

738: $\Delta m$, the coefficient $B$ now has to be non-zero to satisfy the UV 

739: boundary condition \eq{UVboundary}:

740: \beq

741:    B \sim \ka \, \Delta m \, \mu_{\rm IR}^n 

742:               \left( \frac{\mu_{\rm UV}}{\mu_{\rm IR}} \right)^{2n-4} . 

743: \eeq

744: The condition that 

745: this is a small correction at the IR brane requires 

746: $B \mu_{\rm IR}^{-n} \lsim \ka$, \ie 

747: \beq[tuneamount]

748:    \frac{\Delta m}{m} \lsim \left( \frac{\mu_{\rm IR}}{\mu_{\rm UV}} 

749:                             \right)^{4 - 2d} 

750:                       \ll 1   ,

751: \eeq

752: where we have used $n=4-d$.

753: This quantifies the amount of the fine-tuning.  Note that for $d=1$ we have 

754: the same tuning as in the standard model.  Of course, we need only something 

755: like $d = \frac 54$ to push the flavor scale up to $10^4$~TeV,

756: but even in this case 

757: the fine-tuning is $\sim 10^{-6}$, which is unacceptable.  

758: 

759: The 4D CFT interpretation of this fine-tuning is easy to understand.

760: Since the CFT contains an operator $\op$, it also contains the operator 

761: $\op^\dagger \op$ which is invariant under all symmetries.

762: The AdS/CFT correspondence relates operator products to

763: multi-particle states, and the dimensions of composite

764: operators factorize essentially

765: as a consequence of the factorization properties of multi-particle states

766: in a weakly-coupled 5D field theory.

767: The dimension of the operator $\op^\dagger \op$ is therefore $2d$,

768: which means it is a \emph{relevant} operator.

769: Note that \Eq{tuneamount} is exactly the amount of fine-tuning required

770: to suppress the effects of a relevant operator of dimension $2d$.

771: 

772: A convincing check of this interpretation of the fine-tuning

773: can be obtained by computing the vacuum energy in the presence of the VEV 

774: as a function of the tuning parameter $\De m$.

775: The bulk action integral vanishes thanks to the bulk equation 

776: of motion, leaving only the boundary terms.

777: Since the UV boundary condition 

778: is chosen to cancel the boundary term at the UV brane, we only get the 

779: contribution from the IR boundary:

780: \beq[eq:GWpot]

781:    V(\mu_{\rm IR}) 

782:       &\sim \mu^5 \Phi 

783:              \left. \frac{d\Phi}{d\mu} \right|_{\rm IR} \nn\\

784:       &\sim \mu_{\rm IR}^4 \left[ 1 + \frac{\Delta m}{m} 

785:                                \left( \frac{\mu_{\rm IR}}{\mu_{\rm UV}} 

786:                                \right)^{2d-4}

787:                           + \cdots \right]   . 

788: \eeq

789: On the other hand, in the 4D CFT language, we are adding the operator

790: \beq

791:    \Delta {\cal L}_{\rm UV} = \lambda_{\rm UV} \op^\dagger \op 

792: \eeq

793: in the UV.  If the dimension of $\op^\dagger \op$ is $D$, 

794: then the coupling $\lambda$ should scale with energy as

795: \beq

796:    \lambda (\mu) = \lambda_{\rm UV}

797:    \left( \frac{\mu}{\mu_{\rm UV}} \right)^{D-4}.

798: \eeq

799: The vacuum energy associated with $\op^\dagger\op$ therefore has 

800: the form

801: \beq

802:    V &\sim \mu_{\rm IR}^4 \left[ 1 + \lambda (\mu_{\rm IR})

803:                                     + \lambda^2 (\mu_{\rm IR})

804:                                     + \cdots \right]    \nn\\

805:      &\sim  \mu_{\rm IR}^4 \left[ 1 + \lambda_{\rm UV} 

806:                                      \left( \frac{\mu_{\rm IR}}{\mu_{\rm UV}} 

807:                                      \right)^{D -4}  + \cdots

808:                            \right].

809: \eeq

810: Comparing this with \Eq{eq:GWpot}, we see that $D$ is indeed equal to $2d$ 

811: and that the tuning $\De m \to 0$ precisely corresponds to setting 

812: $\la_{\rm UV} = 0$.  Note that this is a tree-level calculation 

813: on the AdS side, which corresponds to a calculation at the leading order 

814: in the $1/N$ expansion on the CFT side.

815: Loop corrections correspond to $1/N$ corrections,

816: and are expected to give corrections to the relation $D = 2d$.

817: These corrections are suppressed by at least a loop factor, and are

818: small whenever perturbation theory is under control.

819: They therefore cannot be used to make the RS model with $d < 2$ natural,

820: but it does illustrate that the relation $D = 2d$ is not exact in general.

821: 

822: We will have more to say about the 4D interpretation of the RS model

823: with $d < 2$ in subsection \ref{subsec:lightscalarRS} below.

824: 

825: 

826: % -----------------------------------------------------------------------

827: \subsection{$S$ in Randall-Sundrum Models}

828: We showed above that $d < 2$ requires tuning in the RS setup,

829: but argued that this is because these are large-$N$ CFT's.

830: But there is another problem with large-$N$ theories.

831: The fact that RS theories are large-$N$ theories means that we also expect

832: them to give large contributions to the $S$ parameter.

833: However, because the 4D CFT corresponding to an RS model also has large

834: 't Hooft parameter, we cannot use NDA to estimate $S$.

835: We therefore briefly review the size of $S$ in these theories.

836: Complete results with numerical coefficients can be found in \Refs{SinRS}.

837: 

838: Contributions to $S$ can arise in various ways, but here let us focus 

839: on the bulk contribution to $S$ arising from the

840: mixing between the unperturbed gauge zero mode and the bulk KK modes

841: via the Higgs kinetic term \cite{Hopkins}.  This is not necessarily

842: the largest contribution to $S$, but it can be easily estimated, and we will see

843: below that it is already too large.  The leading effect of this kind comes from 

844: tree-level mixing between the zero-mode gauge bosons and the excited KK modes:

845: \beq

846: S_{\rm bulk} \sim 16 \pi g_5^2 \left( \frac{v}{m_{\rm KK}} \right)^4,

847: \eeq

848: where $g_5$ is the 5D gauge coupling,

849: $v = \ka \mu_{\rm IR}$ is the 4D VEV that breaks electroweak symmetry,

850: and $m_{\rm KK} \sim \mu_{\rm IR}$ is the mass of the lightest KK mode.

851: (Recall we are using units where $k = 1$.)

852: The 5D gauge coupling parameterizes the CFT contribution to the running of

853: the 4D gauge coupling.

854: For example, if there is a gauge kinetic term localized on the UV brane

855: with coefficient $1/g_{\rm UV}^2$, we have

856: \beq

857: \frac{1}{g_4^2} = \frac{1}{g_{\rm UV}^2}

858: + \frac{1}{g_5^2} \ln\frac{\mu_{\rm UV}}{\mu_{\rm IR}}.

859: \eeq

860: In order to avoid a Landau pole below the UV scale, we require

861: \beq

862: g_5^2 \gsim g_4^2 \ln(\mu_{\rm UV} / \mu_{\rm IR}).

863: \eeq

864: In order to have $S_{\rm bulk} \lsim S_{\rm NDA} \sim 1/\pi$ (roughly the

865: current experimental limit), we must have

866: \beq

867: m_{\rm KK}^2 \gsim 4 \pi v^2

868: \left[ g_4^2 \ln(\mu_{\rm UV} / \mu_{\rm IR}) \right]^{1/2}.

869: \eeq

870: This shows that small values of $S$ can only arise from a hierarchy

871: between $v$ and $m_{\rm KK}$, which however requires fine tuning.

872: The amount of fine tuning is given by

873: \beq

874: {\rm tuning} \sim \left( \frac{4 \pi v}{\La_{\rm IR}} \right)^2

875: \lsim \frac{1}{N_{\rm KK}^2} \,

876: \frac{4\pi}{\left[ g_4^2 \ln(\mu_{\rm UV} / \mu_{\rm IR}) \right]^{1/2}}

877: \eeq

878: where $\La_{\rm IR}$ is the cutoff in IR units and

879: $N_{\rm KK} = \La_{\rm IR} / m_{\rm KK}$ counts the number of KK

880: modes below the cutoff.

881: We see that we can make $S$ small only at the price of either

882: fine-tuning, or taking  $N_{\rm KK}$ to be small,

883: meaning that the cutoff is so low

884: that it describes only a small number of KK modes.

885: In this case, the extra dimension is not really buying any

886: predictive power relative to a general effective theory with

887: a cutoff near the TeV scale.

888: Said another way, since we must allow arbitrary

889: higher-dimension operators

890: suppressed by powers of $\La_{\rm IR}$,

891: the expansion parameter of the effective theory is

892: $1/N_{\rm KK}$.

893: 

894: 

895: %---------------------------------------------------------------

896: \section{A Composite Higgs?}

897: \label{sec:pheno}

898: %---------------------------------------------------------------

899: In this section, we discuss the general phenomenology of a electroweak

900: symmetry breaking sector consisting of a small-$N$ strongly coupled CFT

901: with an electroweak order parameter with dimension $d = 1 + \ep$, with

902: $\ep \sim 1/{\rm few}$.

903: In the case where the (moderately) small value of $\ep$ arises from a 

904: small parameter in the fundamental theory, we

905: argue that the theory contains a prominent sub-TeV scalar resonance 

906: which can be thought of as a Higgs that 

907: is `partially' composite at the TeV scale.

908: The compositeness is `partial' in the sense that the couplings 

909: of the scalar to the strong TeV scale dynamics 

910: is parametrically suppressed by powers of $\ep$.

911: 

912: %---------------------------------------------------------------

913: \subsection{Light Scalars in the Randall-Sundrum Model}

914: \label{subsec:lightscalarRS}

915: Although we are interested in 4D CFT's that do not have a simple

916: higher-dimensional interpretation, we begin by determining the

917: properties of the lightest scalar KK modes in the RS model.

918: We find the results illuminating, and will argue that they have a 

919: simple physical interpretation that extends to the case of a

920: partially composite Higgs.

921: 

922: To make a fully realistic RS model, we need a model with custodial

923: symmetry.

924: As explained in \Ref{Hopkins} this can be done by gauging a

925: $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$ in the bulk

926: and breaking this down to $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ on the UV brane.%

927: %

928: \footnote{\Ref{Hopkins} gauged

929: $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$ in the bulk,

930: which is necessary to properly embed $U(1)_Y$ for bulk fermions.

931: If fermions are elementary, as assumed here, there is no need for the

932: $U(1)_{B - L}$ factor in the bulk gauge group.}

933: %

934: Since we are using RS only as a guide, we 

935: will ignore the issue of custodial symmetry and consider the model with

936: only $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ gauged in the bulk.

937: However, it is straightforward to construct a fully realistic RS model

938: at the price of fine-tuning.

939: 

940: We now consider the KK decomposition of the bulk scalar doublet $H$.

941: We are mainly interested in the KK modes of $\Phi$, which contains the 

942: light Higgs-like boson (see \Eq{HPhiPidefn}).

943: The eigenvalue condition for KK masses of the $\Phi$ with the fine-tuned

944: boundary condition \Eq{tunedmass} in the UV and the shifted boundary 

945: condition $\Phi(\mu_{\rm IR})=0$ in the IR which corresponds to \Eq{PhiIRbdy} 

946: after subtracting the VEV is given by

947: \beq[scalareigen]

948: \frac{J_{-1+\ep}(x)}{J_{1-\ep}(x)} = -\frac{J_{\ep}(y)}{J_{-\ep}(y)},

949: \eeq

950: where

951: \beq

952: x = \frac{m}{\mu_{\rm IR}},

953: \qquad

954: y = \frac{m}{\mu_{\rm UV}}.

955: \eeq

956: Expanding this for small $x$, $y$, and $\ep$, we obtain the mass of the 

957: lightest mode:

958: \beq

959: \eql{massform}

960: m_0^2 &= 4 \ep \mu_{\rm IR}^2 \left[

961: 1 - \left( \frac{\mu_{\rm IR}}{\mu_{\rm UV}} \right)^{2\ep} \right]^{-1}

962: \Bigl[ 1 + O(\ep) + O(x^2) + O(y^2) \Bigr]

963: \\

964: \eql{scalarmasscase}

965: &\simeq

966: \begin{cases}

967: \vphantom{\Bigl]}

968: 4 \ep \mu_{\rm IR}^2

969: & for $\ep \gg 1/\ln(\mu_{\rm UV}/\mu_{\rm IR})$

970: \\

971: \displaystyle\vphantom{\Biggl]}

972: \frac{2 \mu_{\rm IR}^2}{\ln (\mu_{\rm UV}/\mu_{\rm IR})}

973: & for $\ep \ll 1/\ln(\mu_{\rm UV}/\mu_{\rm IR})$

974: \\

975: \end{cases}

976: \eeq

977: The 4D CFT interpretation of these results is the following.

978: The scalar would be exactly massless in the limit of unbroken conformal

979: symmetry, but the conformal symmetry is broken both in the UV and

980: the IR.

981: For {\it finite} $\ep$ in the limit $\mu_{\rm UV} \to \infty$,

982: the IR breaking of conformal invariance dominates.  Hence, if the scalar 

983: couples to the CFT with full strength, the conformal breaking should give 

984: $m_0^2 \sim \mu_{\rm IR}^2$.  However, in our case we expect from the 

985: general CFT theorem that the scalar should

986: decouple from the CFT for $\ep \to 0$.  We exactly see this behavior 

987: in the first case in \Eq{scalarmasscase}, where we

988: have $m^2 \sim \ep \mu_{\rm IR}^2$, and the interpretation of this is that 

989: $\ep$ controls 

990: the couplings of the scalar to the part of the CFT in which conformal 

991: symmetry is spontaneously broken (by the IR brane).

992: On the other hand,

993: the UV breaking of conformal symmetry dominates for finite

994: $\mu_{\rm UV}$ and $\ep \to 0$.

995: In this limit the scalar decouples from the CFT at low energies

996: (as required by the general theorem) but only logarithmically, just like

997: an elementary scalar.

998: 

999: For realistic models, the question of whether the breaking of conformal

1000: invariance is dominantly in the UV or the IR depends on the scale

1001: $\mu_{\rm UV}$ where the theory approaches the conformal fixed point.

1002: This scale could be as high as the Planck scale even if the flavor scale

1003: is much lower, since the top flavor interactions may be a weak perturbation

1004: on the strong CFT dynamics.

1005: In this case $\ln(\mu_{\rm UV} / \mu_{\rm IR}) \sim 40$, and since we 

1006: are interested in $\ep \sim 1/{\rm few}$, we expect that

1007: the breaking of conformal symmetry is dominated in the IR.

1008: We will therefore mainly focus on this case in the following.

1009: 

1010: We have taken $\ep \ll 1$ in the above discussion in order to focus on the

1011: parametrics, but we are really interested in $\ep \sim 1/{\rm few}$.

1012: We can easily compute the mass of the scalar KK modes in this simple

1013: model to see what we might expect for larger values of $\ep$.

1014: In order to focus on the contribution to the scalar mass from the IR

1015: breaking of conformal symmetry we take $\mu_{\rm UV} \to \infty$,

1016: in which case the eigenvalue equation \Eq{scalareigen} for $\phi$

1017: becomes

1018: \beq[PhiKKeigen]

1019: J_{-1 + \ep}(x)  = 0,

1020: \eeq

1021: while the eigenvalue equation for the `Goldstone' modes $\Pi_a$ is

1022: \beq

1023: J_1(x) = 0.

1024: \eeq

1025: These can be solved numerically, and the mass of the lightest

1026: scalar resonances as a function of $\ep$ are plotted in

1027: Fig.~\ref{fig:KKmasses}.

1028: We see that there is a light `Higgs' even for moderate values of

1029: $\ep$.  Note that for $\ep=0$ we recover a tower of completely degenerate 

1030: doublets.%

1031: %

1032: \footnote{This is an exact statement since $J_{-1}(x)=-J_1(x)$.}

1033: %

1034: \begin{figure}[t]

1035: \begin{center}

1036: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{massplot.eps}

1037: \caption{The masses of the scalar (solid lines) and Goldstone (dashed lines) 

1038: resonances as a function of $\ep$ in the RS version of the CFT.}

1039: \label{fig:KKmasses}

1040: \end{center}

1041: \end{figure}

1042: 

1043: 

1044: 

1045: To get more evidences for our claim that $\ep$ controls the coupling of 

1046: the scalar to the CFT, we now compute the couplings of this scalar resonance

1047: to gauge bosons and fermions.

1048: Writing the scalar field as

1049: \beq

1050: \Phi(x, \mu) = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty f_n(\mu) \phi_n(x),

1051: \eeq

1052: the KK wavefunctions $f_n$ are given by

1053: \beq

1054: f_n(\mu) = \frac{1}{\mu^2} \left[ A_n J_{-1 + \ep}\left( \frac{m_n}{\mu} \right)

1055: + B_n J_{1 - \ep} \left( \frac{m_n}{\mu} \right) \right].

1056: \eeq

1057: The Bessel functions are linearly independent for $0 < \ep < 1$,

1058: which is sufficient for our purposes.

1059: The boundary conditions determine the ratio $B_n/A_n$ and the mass $m_n$.

1060: The UV boundary conditions then give

1061: \beq

1062: \frac{B_n}{A_n} = \frac{J_{\ep}(y_n)}{J_{-\ep}(y_n)}

1063: \simeq \left( \frac{y_n}{2} \right)^{2\ep}.

1064: \eeq

1065: where $y_n = m_n / \mu_{\rm UV}$.

1066: For simplicity we again take $\mu_{\rm UV} \to \infty$ to focus

1067: on the IR effects, in which case this simply gives $B_n = 0$.

1068: 

1069: For the lightest KK mode we have $m_0 \ll \mu$ for all $\mu$, 

1070: and we can expand the Bessel function $J_{-1+\ep}(y_0)$ to obtain

1071: \beq[zeroKKwavefcn]

1072: f_0(\mu) \simeq \frac{A_0}{\mu^2} \left[

1073: \ep \left( \frac{m_0}{2\mu} \right)^{-1 + \ep}

1074: - \left( \frac{m_0}{2\mu} \right)^{1 + \ep}

1075: \right].

1076: \eeq

1077: The two terms are parametrically the same size at the IR brane because

1078: $m_0^2 \simeq 4 \ep \mu_{\rm IR}^2$ (See \Eq{scalarmasscase}).

1079: We determine $A_0$ by demanding that the real scalar field $\phi_0$ is

1080: canonically normalized:

1081: \beq

1082: \sfrac 12 = \int_{\mu_{\rm IR}}^{\mu_{\rm UV}} d\mu\,

1083: \mu\, f^2_0(\mu).

1084: \eeq

1085: The integral over the first term in \Eq{zeroKKwavefcn} involves

1086: $\int d\mu\, \mu^{-1-2\ep} = -\mu / 2\ep$, and the additional

1087: factor of $1/\ep$ makes this term dominate in the determination of $A_0$.

1088: A similar integral appears when computing the $\phi W W$ coupling,

1089: and we therefore find that the $\phi W W$ coupling is equal to the

1090: standard model value up to $O(\ep)$ corrections.

1091: More specifically, we find

1092: \beq

1093: \eql{phiWWinRS}

1094: g_{\phi W W} = g_{\phi W W}^{\rm (SM)} \left[ 1 - \frac{\ep}{4} 

1095: + O(\ep^2) \right].

1096: \eeq

1097: Similarly, when computing the coupling of $\phi$ to the top quark,

1098: we note that the first term in \Eq{zeroKKwavefcn} dominates at

1099: large $\mu$, so the top coupling is also approximately equal to

1100: the standard model, but this time with corrections suppressed by

1101: $m_0^2 / \mu_{\rm UV}^2$.

1102: This is so small that dominant corrections in fact come from 

1103: perturbative top loops. Therefore, 

1104: we see that in the RS model the couplings of the light scalar to top

1105: quarks is very nearly equal to the standard model value, while

1106: the couplings to gauge bosons has a larger, order $\scr{\ep}$ deviation 

1107: from the standard model value.

1108: 

1109: We now describe the 4D CFT interpretation of these results.

1110: The KK modes get massive due to the breaking of conformal

1111: symmetry, which occurs in both the UV and the IR.

1112: The UV breaking can be decoupled by sending $\mu_{\rm UV} \to \infty$.

1113: As $\ep \to 0$ a full scalar doublet is becoming massless, with

1114: deviations from standard model couplings suppressed (at least)

1115: by powers of $\ep$.

1116: Therefore, this supports our interpretation that the scalar doublet is 

1117: coupled to the strong CFT with a coupling that vanishes as a power of $\ep$.

1118: In RS setup fine-tuning is required to decouple the UV breaking of conformal

1119: invariance, so this is not a viable solution to the

1120: hierarchy problem, but as explained in section \ref{sec:scalarop}

1121: this fine-tuning need not be present in small-$N$ models, which

1122: we turn to next.

1123: 

1124: 

1125: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1126: \subsection{Parametrically Light Scalars from Strong Conformal Dynamics}

1127: We now consider a strongly coupled small-$N$

1128: CFT with an electroweak order parameter (`Higgs operator') $\scr{O}$ with

1129: dimension $d = 1 + \ep$.

1130: The key feature of this theory is that $\ep$ is small enough to generate

1131: a large hierarchy between the flavor scale and the electroweak scale

1132: (see \Eq{topmassscaling}), but at the same time large enough that the operator

1133: $\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$ (`Higgs mass term') is irrelevant.

1134: We argued above that for $\ep \ll 1$, the dimension of $\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$

1135: is $2d + O(\ep)$, which is therefore relevant.

1136: We are assuming that $\ep \sim 1/{\rm few}$, but the $O(\ep)$ corrections to the

1137: dimension of $\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$ are large enough to make the operator

1138: irrelevant.

1139: 

1140: There are at least two ways one can imagine this coming about.

1141: The first possibility is that there is no large or small parameter in the theory,

1142: and the fact that $d$ is close to $1$ is simply a numerical accident.

1143: In this case, we expect the low-energy effective theory below the scale

1144: $\La$ to be a general strongly coupled NDA theory with no small parameters.

1145: Another possibility is that there is in fact a moderately small parameter

1146: in the fundamental theory that controls the size of $\ep$.

1147: (For example, in the RS model this parameter is the mass of the bulk scalar.)

1148: For $\ep \sim 1/{\rm few}$ it is expected that not all quantities will be

1149: numerically small even if parametrically suppressed by a power of $\ep$.

1150: We assume one such numerical accident that the anomalous dimension of 

1151: $\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$ is large.%

1152: %

1153: \footnote{We remind the reader that the hierarchy between the flavor scale

1154: and the electroweak scale is exponentially sensitive to $\ep$, and therefore

1155: is expected to be more robust than the smallness of power corrections.}

1156: %

1157: In this subsection, we will describe

1158: the effective field theory below the TeV scale for

1159: this theory.

1160: We will start with the limit $\ep \ll 1$, and then extrapolate

1161: to $\ep \sim 1/{\rm few}$.

1162: 

1163: As argued above,

1164: for $\ep \ll 1$ the correlation functions of the operator $\scr{O}$

1165: are approximated by the correlation function of an elementary scalar

1166: doublet $h$.

1167: In the range of energies where the theory is approximately conformal,

1168: the theory can therefore be written in terms of a lagrangian where

1169: $h$ is coupled to a strong sector:

1170: \beq[LeffScalar]

1171: \scr{L} = | D h|^2 - m^2 |h|^2 - \sfrac 14 \la |h|^4

1172: + c_1 ( \scr{O}_{1} h^\dagger + \hc )

1173: + \cdots,

1174: \eeq

1175: where $\scr{O}_{1}$ is an operator in the strongly-coupled

1176: sector of the theory with the same quantum numbers as $h$.

1177: We are interested in the case where the coupling to the strong sector is

1178: sufficiently strong so that the operators $|h|^2$ and $|h|^4$ have

1179: large anomalous dimensions, and are irrelevant.

1180: This allows us to neglect the couplings $m^2$ and $\la$ in the 

1181: conformal regime without fine tuning, and is the basic reason that this

1182: class of theories solves the hierarchy problem.

1183: In general, large anomalous dimensions for the operators $|h|^2$ and

1184: $|h|^4$ imply that $\ep \sim 1$, where $\ep$ is defined as the anomalous

1185: dimension of $h$ itself.

1186: However, it is an assumption of our analysis that $\ep \sim 1/{\rm few}$ is 

1187: still small enough that an expansion 

1188: in powers of $\ep$ gives at least qualitatively correct results 

1189: for observables.

1190: 

1191: In order for the coupling $c_1$ to be important near the fixed point of

1192: the theory, the scaling dimension of the operator must be sufficiently

1193: small (3 in the limit $\ep \ll 1$).

1194: We must assume that such an operator exists in order for $h$ to have

1195: sufficiently strong couplings to the strong sector of the CFT.

1196: In order to make a contribution of order $\ep$ to the anomalous dimension

1197: of the scalar field, we must have

1198: \beq[c1]

1199: c_1 \sim 4\pi \sqrt{\ep}\,.

1200: \eeq

1201: The powers of $4\pi$ are counted using NDA, which assumes that the theory

1202: has no large or small parameters other than $\ep$. This is valid because 

1203: our theory is by assumption a small-$N$ theory.%

1204: %

1205: \footnote{NDA does not hold in the RS model, but the argument for the 

1206: powers of $\ep$ does apply.}

1207: %

1208: 

1209: We can also consider couplings such as

1210: \beq

1211: \De \scr{L} = c_2 \scr{O}_2 |h|^2 + c_3 ( \scr{O}_3 h^2 + \hc )

1212: + \cdots

1213: \eeq

1214: However, since by assumption $|h|^2$ has scaling dimension greater than 4,

1215: $c_2$ is irrelevant near the fixed point.

1216: The coupling $c_3$ is only important at the fixed point if the $SU(2)_W$

1217: triplet operator $\scr{O}_3$ has

1218: a sufficiently low dimension (2 in the limit $\ep \ll 1$), but there is no

1219: reason to expect that an operator 

1220: of such low dimension exists in the strong sector of the CFT.

1221: This obviously generalizes to coupling involving higher powers of $h$,

1222: and we conclude that the coupling of a single power of $h$ to the

1223: strong sector of the CFT will dominate at the fixed point.

1224: 

1225: Now suppose that the conformal symmetry is broken at an IR scale $\La$.

1226: (We assume that the conformal fixed point is reached at very high

1227: energies, and therefore neglect any UV breaking of conformal symmetry.)

1228: For example, we can have a new non-abelian gauge group that gauges a

1229: global symmetry of the CFT.

1230: If the new gauge coupling is asymptotically free, it will get strong in

1231: the IR and break the conformal symmetry, as discussed in the introduction.

1232: The point of this is that the breaking of conformal symmetry occurs 

1233: in the strong sector of the CFT, since the new gauge fields do not 

1234: couple directly to $h$.  Therefore, $h$ learns the conformal breaking only 

1235: via coupling to the CFT, and we would like to understand how $\ep$ controls

1236: this communication.

1237: 

1238: Below the scale $\La$, the coupling $c_1$ in \Eq{LeffScalar} will

1239: generate all possible interactions of the scalar field $h$.

1240: In particular, it will generate the $|h|^2$ and $|h|^4$ terms, which

1241: are no longer rendered irrelevant by the strong conformal dynamics.

1242: The effective lagrangian below the scale $\La$ is then

1243: \beq[Leffscalar]

1244: \scr{L}_{\rm eff} =  

1245: |D h|^2 % - m^2 |h|^2 - \sfrac 14 \la |h|^4

1246: + \frac{\La^4}{16\pi^2}\, \scr{F}\left( \frac{4 \pi \sqrt{\ep}\, h}{\La},\,

1247: \frac{D_\mu}{\La} \right),

1248: \eeq

1249: where $\scr{F}$ is an order-1 function that parameterizes the effects of the

1250: strong sector, and $D_\mu$ is the gauge covariant derivative

1251: of the standard model.

1252: The factors of $4\pi$ are put in according to NDA, which assumes that 

1253: the theory is strongly coupled at the scale $\La$ with no large or small

1254: parameters other than $\ep$.

1255: Here we are again using the assumption that this is a small-$N$ theory.

1256: Expanding out \Eq{Leffscalar}, we obtain

1257: \beq

1258: \scr{L}_{\rm eff} = |D h|^2 - m_h^2 |h|^2 

1259: - \sfrac 14 \la |h|^4 + \cdots,

1260: \eeq

1261: with

1262: \beq

1263: m_h^2 \sim \ep \La^2,

1264: \qquad

1265: \la \sim 16\pi^2 \ep^2.

1266: \eeq

1267: Note that the result for the mass agrees with the RS calculation 

1268: \eq{scalarmasscase}.

1269: If $m_h^2 < 0$, electroweak symmetry will be spontaneously broken by

1270: a VEV for $h$, and we obtain

1271: \beq

1272: m_W^2 = \sfrac 12 g_2^2 v^2,

1273: \qquad

1274: m_Z^2 = \sfrac 12 (g_1^2 + g_2^2) v^2

1275: \eeq

1276: from the $h$ kinetic term, where

1277: \beq

1278: \avg{h} = \pmatrix{0 \cr v \cr},

1279: \eeq

1280: with $v = 174 \GeV$ as in the standard model.

1281: We therefore obtain

1282: \beq

1283: \La \sim 4 \pi \sqrt{\ep}\, v.

1284: \eeq

1285: The scale of new strong dynamics is parametrically below the scale

1286: $\LEW \sim 4\pi v \sim 2\TeV$, but for $\ep \sim 1/{\rm few}$ there are

1287: large uncertainties of the NDA estimates.%

1288: %

1289: \footnote{%

1290: Note that it does not make sense to take $\ep$ to be smaller than 

1291: the gauge loop contribution to the anomalous dimension, $\sim g_2^2/16\pi^2$. 

1292: In fact, at this critical value we have $\La \sim g_2 v \sim m_W$.}

1293: 

1294: 

1295: We now discuss the couplings of $h$ to the standard model gauge bosons.

1296: Because $\avg{4\pi \sqrt{\ep}\, h / \La} \sim 1$, 

1297: the function $\scr{F}$ in the effective lagrangian \Eq{Leffscalar}

1298: contains all possible electroweak breaking couplings of $h$ and gauge bosons

1299: with $O(1)$ coefficients in terms of $4\pi \sqrt{\ep}\, h / \La$ 

1300: and $\La$.

1301: For example, the leading correction to the $hWW$ coupling is 

1302: \beq

1303: \De\scr{L}_{\rm eff} \sim \frac{\La^4}{16\pi^2} 

1304: \left( \frac{g_2 W_\mu}{\La} \right)^2

1305: \frac{4\pi \sqrt{\ep}\, h}{\La} % \cdot 1

1306: \sim \ep g_2^2 v W_\mu^2 h + \cdots.

1307: \eeq

1308: This gives an $O(\ep)$ correction to the coupling of the Higgs

1309: to gauge bosons, as anticipated from the RS computation \eq{phiWWinRS}.

1310: 

1311: We now consider the couplings to the top quark.

1312: In the conformal regime, we add a coupling of the form

1313: \beq

1314: \De\scr{L} = c_t (h Q t^{\rm c} + \hc )

1315: \eeq

1316: between the scalar doublet $h$ and the elementary top quark.

1317: The field $h$ has an anomalous dimension $\ep$ that suppresses

1318: the coupling $c_t$ at low energies, so that the top quark Yukawa

1319: coupling at the weak scale is

1320: \beq

1321: y_t = c_t(\La_t) \left( \frac{\La}{\La_t} \right)^{\ep},

1322: \eeq

1323: where $\La_t$ is the scale where the top quark coupling is generated.

1324: As discussed above, we assume that $c_t(\La_t)$ is sufficiently large

1325: that $y_t v = m_t$ at the weak scale.

1326: The leading coupling of $h$ to the top quark is therefore the same as

1327: in the standard model.

1328: The leading corrections to this come from $h$ loop effects such as the

1329: one shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:htt}, which gives

1330: \beq

1331: \De y_t \sim \frac{y_t^2}{16\pi^2} \frac{\La^4}{16\pi^2} 

1332:              \left( \frac{4\pi\sqrt{\ep}\, h}{\La} \right)^3 

1333:              \frac{1}{m_h}

1334: \sim \frac{y_t^2}{4\pi} \ep,

1335: \eeq

1336: where the factor of $1/m_h$ arises because the diagram is IR dominated.

1337: This diagram is the same as in the standard model, except that the 3 point

1338: Higgs interaction does not have the standard model value.

1339: This can be seen by expanding the function $\scr{F}$ in \Eq{Leffscalar},

1340: where we see that the VEV and the 2- and 3-point functions of the Higgs

1341: expanded about the VEV are independent.

1342: This is expected to give a deviation from the standard model prediction

1343: of between $1\%$ and $10\%$.

1344: %

1345: \begin{figure}[t]

1346: \begin{center}

1347: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{htt-fig.eps}

1348: \caption{Correction to the $ht\bar{t}$ coupling in the low energy effective

1349: theory below $\La$.  The bullet represents a local operator that includes

1350: CFT contributions to the 3-point function as well.} 

1351: \label{fig:htt}

1352: \end{center}

1353: \end{figure}

1354: %

1355: 

1356: 

1357: \subsection{Phenomenology}

1358: We now turn to the phenomenology of this class of models.

1359: One important question in these models is the size of precision electroweak

1360: corrections.

1361: The effective operator that contributes to $S$ is obtained

1362: from the effective lagrangian \Eq{Leffscalar}:

1363: \beq

1364: \De\scr{L}_{\rm eff} \sim \frac{\ep g_1 g_2}{\La^2} 

1365: h^\dagger W^{\mu\nu} h B_{\mu\nu}

1366: \sim \frac{g_1 g_2}{16\pi^2} W^{\mu\nu}_3 B_{\mu\nu} + \cdots.

1367: \eeq

1368: This gives a contribution to $S$ with NDA strength, $S\sim 1/\pi$, \ie 

1369: similar to small-$N$ technicolor.

1370: The $T$ parameter requires breaking of custodial symmetry, and therefore

1371: requires an additional hypercharge loop.

1372: The effective coupling that gives rise to $T$ is therefore

1373: \beq

1374: \De\scr{L}_{\rm eff} \sim 

1375: \frac{g_1^2}{16\pi^2}

1376: \frac{16\pi^2 \ep^2}{\La^2} |h^\dagger D_\mu h|^2

1377: \sim \frac{\ep g_1^2 m_Z^2}{16\pi^2} Z_\mu^2 + \cdots,

1378: \eeq

1379: where $Z_\mu$ is the $Z$ boson field.

1380: This gives a contribution to $T$ that is parametrically smaller than the NDA

1381: value:

1382: \beq

1383: T \sim \frac{\ep}{4\pi} \sim \ep \, T_{\rm NDA}.

1384: \eeq

1385: Taken at face value, this is not so

1386: great for precision electroweak fits, since

1387: the best fit for nonzero electroweak corrections has both $S$ and $T$

1388: positive and comparable.

1389: However, given the uncertainties in these estimates

1390: these theories are still viable.

1391: 

1392: The phenomenology at high energy colliders depends on the structure of

1393: strong resonances at the TeV scale.

1394: We cannot make any rigorous prediction about these resonances other than

1395: the fact that they must exist to unitarize WW scattering (the `no lose theorem').

1396: In the case where the small dimension of the electroweak order parameter

1397: is due to a moderately small parameter in the fundamental theory, we argued

1398: above that there will be a prominent scalar resonance below the TeV scale

1399: whose couplings to gauge bosons and the top quark are parametrically close

1400: to the standard-model values.

1401: The deviation from the standard-model value for the coupling to the top

1402: quark is quite small, between $1\%$ and $10\%$, while the deviation from

1403: the standard model value for the $\phi W W$ coupling is of order $\ep$,

1404: which is expected to be at least $10\%$.

1405: The possibility of studying a `non-standard' heavy Higgs-like scalar

1406: at the LHC has been discussed by a number of authors \cite{Higgswidth}.

1407: The discovery of such a particle

1408: and the measurement of deviations from the standard-model predictions

1409: for its couplings may well be the first indication of

1410: strong conformal dynamics as the origin of electroweak symmetry breaking.

1411:         

1412: 

1413: %---------------------------------------------------------------

1414: \section{Conclusions}

1415: \label{sec:conc}

1416: %---------------------------------------------------------------

1417: We have described a new paradigm for dynamical electroweak symmetry

1418: breaking in which the electroweak symmetry breaking sector is a

1419: conformal field theory (CFT) above the TeV scale. Conformal symmetry and

1420: electroweak symmetry are broken at the TeV scale, triggered by an

1421: asymptotically-free gauge group or a slightly relevant operator becoming 

1422: strong, or by a relevant operator with a coefficient made small naturally 

1423: by symmetries.  Any of these mechanisms stabilizes the weak scale against 

1424: quantum corrections and gives a solution of the hierarchy problem.

1425: 

1426: The flavor problem of dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking is solved

1427: if the dimension of the CFT operator that acts as the order parameter

1428: for electroweak symmetry breaking has a dimension $d$ close to 1, the

1429: dimension of an elementary Higgs scalar field. For $d = 1 + \ep$, the

1430: scale where the top quark Yukawa coupling becomes strong is raised to

1431: $\LEW (\LEW/m_t)^{1/\ep}$, where $\LEW \sim 2\TeV$. For $\ep \sim

1432: 1/{\rm few}$, this is large enough to effectively decouple flavor.

1433: 

1434: Finding a CFT with the required properties is highly nontrivial. Weakly

1435: coupled CFT's can certainly have operators with dimension near 1 in the

1436: form of an elementary scalar Higgs field $h$, but this clearly does not

1437: solve the hierarchy problem because of the existence of the relevant

1438: operator $h^\dagger h$ with dimension near 2. What is required is a

1439: strongly-coupled CFT with a scalar operator $\scr{O}$ with

1440: dimension $d = 1 + \ep$, where strong CFT dynamics renders the operator

1441: $\scr{O}^\dagger \scr{O}$ irrelevant by giving it a large

1442: anomalous dimension.  We have shown, however, that strong CFT's with

1443: large $N$, including those obtained from the AdS/CFT correspondence,

1444: have the property that the dimension of $\scr{O}^\dagger\scr{O}$ is

1445: close to $2d$, and are therefore fine-tuned for $d < 2$.

1446: 

1447: We are therefore led to consider strongly-coupled, small-$N$ CFT's.

1448: These theories also naturally have small electroweak precision

1449: corrections, addressing another strong constraint on models of

1450: dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking. The difficulty is that there

1451: are no reliable theoretical tools for studying such theories, and in

1452: fact no explicit examples are known. 

1453: In the case where the smallness of $\ep$ is due to a small parameter

1454: in the fundamental theory, we argued that there will be a prominent

1455: scalar resonance with couplings to gauge bosons and

1456: the top quark that are comparable to that of a heavy standard-model

1457: Higgs, but with $O(\ep)$ deviations that can be measured at LHC.

1458: We believe that this gives strong motivation to experimental studies of

1459: a heavy Higgs-like particle, and look forward to a decisive test of

1460: these ideas.

1461:  

1462: 

1463: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1464: We would like to thank N. Arkani-Hamed and A. Cohen for discussions, and

1465: J. Terning and R. Sundrum for comments on the manuscript.  Finally, we 

1466: express our gratitude to K. Agashe for pointing out an error in the appendix.

1467: M.~A.~L. is supported by NSF grant PHY-009954.

1468: T.~O. is supported by DOE contract DE-FG03-91ER-40676.

1469: 

1470: 

1471: 

1472: %----------------------------------------------------------------

1473: %\section*{Appendix}

1474: %----------------------------------------------------------------

1475: \startappendices

1476: \setcounter{section}{0}

1477: %----------------------------------------------------------------

1478: 

1479: %--------------------------------------------------------------

1480: \section*{Appendix A: Composite Fermions}

1481: \setcounter{section}{1}

1482: %--------------------------------------------------------------

1483: In this appendix, we consider the possibility that fermion masses are

1484: generated by mixing with fermionic operators of the CFT.

1485: That is, we suppose that the CFT contains operators with quantum

1486: numbers conjugate to the standard model fermion fields, and we include

1487: interaction terms

1488: \beq[flavormix]

1489: \de\scr{L} = z_Q Q \scr{Q}^{\rm c} + z_u u^{\rm c} \scr{U}

1490: + z_d d^{\rm c} \scr{D}

1491: + z_L L \scr{L}^{\rm c} + z_e e^{\rm c} \scr{E},

1492: \eeq

1493: where $Q, \ldots, e^{\rm c}$ are standard model fermions, and

1494: $\scr{Q}^{\rm c}, \ldots, \scr{E}$ are fermionic CFT operators.

1495: The unitarity limit on the dimension of the CFT operators is $d = \frac 32$,

1496: the dimension of a free fermion, so the couplings $z_Q, \ldots, z_e$ can

1497: be marginal or even relevant without approaching the unitarity limit

1498: for CFT operators.

1499: This means that the flavor scale where these operators are generated

1500: can be decoupled completely, just as in the standard model.

1501: We will show that this mechanism generally require a mild $\sim 10$\% 

1502: tuning to accomodate constraints on $Z \to b\bar{b}$ and the $T$ parameter 

1503: together with the heavy top mass. 

1504: 

1505: This mechanism for generating fermion masses was first considered in

1506: the context of technicolor theories in \Ref{Kaplan}. 

1507: It has been revived recently in the context of RS theories, where it

1508: corresponds to putting standard model fermions in the bulk \cite{bulkfermions}.

1509: We consider this framework here using our CFT language, which makes 

1510: it clear that our analysis is model-independent. 

1511: 

1512: In \Eq{flavormix}, the couplings $z_Q, \ldots, z_e$ are $3 \times 3$ matrices

1513: in flavor space.

1514: These $z$'s act as spurions that violate the $SU(3)^5$ flavor symmetry

1515: that is otherwise present, and their transformation properties under the

1516: flavor symmetry determine the structure of flavor violation in this model.

1517: We will normalize the CFT operators $\scr{Q}^{\rm c}, \ldots, \scr{E}$ so

1518: that $z \sim 1$ corresponds to strong coupling at the scale of conformal

1519: and electroweak symmetry breaking $\La$.

1520: If the conformal and electroweak symmetry breaking is strong with no large

1521: or small parameters, NDA tells us that the quark mass matrices are

1522: \beq

1523: m_u = c \La z_Q^\dagger z_u,

1524: \qquad

1525: m_d = c \La z_Q^\dagger z_d,

1526: \eeq

1527: where $c \sim 1$.%

1528: %

1529: \footnote{We assume that the CFT preserves custodial symmetry so that the

1530: coefficients $c$ are the same for up- and down-type fermions.}

1531: %

1532: To get the top quark mass, we must therefore have

1533: \beq[topmassconstr]

1534: (z_Q^\dagger z_u)_{33} \sim \frac{m_t}{\La} \sim \frac 1{10}.

1535: \eeq

1536: 

1537: Because the $z$'s violate flavor and custodial symmetry, they give rise to

1538: corrections to the $\rho$ parameter and the $Z \to b \bar{b}$ vertex.

1539: Note that the leading corrections to the $\rho$ parameter do not involve 

1540: internal gauge bosons, so we can ignore the custodial symmetry breaking

1541: from $U(1)_Y$.

1542: In this limit the standard model and the CFT each 

1543: have a separate $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$ symmetry, which are broken to 

1544: diagonal subgroups by $z_Q$ and $z_{u,d}$.

1545: Specifically, the $z$'s transform like

1546: \beq

1547:    z_L &\too L_{\rm SM} \, z_L L_{\rm CFT}^\dagger \nn\\

1548:    z_R &\too R_{\rm SM} \, z_R R_{\rm CFT}^\dagger , 

1549: \eeq

1550: where $z_L \equiv z_Q$ and $z_R \equiv {\rm diag}(z_d, \, z_u)$.

1551: Electroweak symmetry is broken with NDA strength in the strong sector

1552: in the pattern $[SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R]_{\rm CFT} \to SU(2)_{\rm cust, CFT}$,

1553: so custodial symmetry breaking in the standard model sector depends

1554: on the spurion $z_u z_u^\dagger - z_d z_d^\dagger$.

1555: This spurion has $\De I_{\rm cust,SM} = 1$, while a

1556: custodial symmetry violating contribution to the $Z$ mass

1557: has $\De I_{\rm cust,SM} = 2$.

1558: Therefore%

1559: \footnote{The first version of this paper argued that

1560: $\De M_Z^2 \sim z_u^\dagger z_u$.

1561: We thank Kaustubh Agashe for pointing out our mistake.}

1562: %  

1563: \beq

1564: \De M_Z^2 \sim \frac{g^2 \La^2}{16\pi^2}

1565: \tr(z_u z_u^\dagger - z_d z_d^\dagger )^2

1566: \sim \frac{g^2 \La^2}{16\pi^2} \tr(z_u z_u^\dagger )^2

1567: \eeq

1568: In order to satisfy the constraint on the $\rho$ (or $T$) parameter, we require

1569: \beq[rhoparamconstr]

1570: \tr(z_u z_u^\dagger )^2  \lsim \frac 1{100}.

1571: \eeq

1572: On the other hand, the correction to the $Z \to b_L\bar{b}_L$ vertex is

1573: \beq

1574: \De g_{Z \to b\bar{b}} \sim 4\pi \frac{g}{4\pi} (z_Q^\dagger z_Q)_{33}.

1575: \eeq

1576: Satisfying the experimental constraint requires

1577: \beq[Zbbconstr]

1578: (z_Q^\dagger z_Q)_{33} \lsim \frac 1{100}.

1579: \eeq

1580: 

1581: We see that generically there is a tension in satisfying all three constraints: 

1582: the $\rho$ parameter constraint \eq{rhoparamconstr}, the $Z\to b\bar{b}$ 

1583: constraint \eq{Zbbconstr} and the top mass condition \eq{topmassconstr}.

1584: For example, with $(z_Q)_{33} \sim 1$, \Eq{topmassconstr} forces 

1585: $(z_u)_{33} \sim \frac 1{10}$, which makes the $\rho$ constraint completely 

1586: safe while requiring an additional 

1587: contribution to the $Z \to b\bar{b}$ coupling that cancels the non-standard 

1588: one to $1\%$ accuracy. With $z_u \sim 1$, the $Z\to b\bar{b}$ constraint is 

1589: just on the edge while the $\rho$ constraint needs $1\%$ tuning.   

1590: However, we can `compromise' and choose 

1591: $(z_Q)_{33} \sim (z_u)_{33} \sim \frac 13$,

1592: which puts us just on the edge of the $\rho$ constraint, while we must find 

1593: additional contributions to $Z \to b\bar{b}$ that cancel the unwanted CFT 

1594: contribution to $10\%$ accuracy.  Therefore, in this part of the parameter 

1595: space, this framework is viable with mild tuning. 

1596: 

1597: 

1598: 

1599: \newpage

1600: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1601: 

1602: \bibitem{TC}

1603: L.~Susskind,

1604: %``Dynamics Of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking In The Weinberg-Salam Theory,''

1605: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 20}, 2619 (1979);

1606: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D20,2619;%%

1607: %

1608: S.~Weinberg,

1609: %``Implications Of Dynamical Symmetry Breaking,''

1610: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 13}, 974 (1976);

1611: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D13,974;%%

1612: %

1613: S.~Weinberg,

1614: %``Implications Of Dynamical Symmetry Breaking: An Addendum,''

1615: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 19}, 1277 (1979).

1616: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D19,1277;%%

1617: 

1618: 

1619: \bibitem{SQCD}

1620: B.~Holdom and J.~Terning,

1621: %``Large Corrections To Electroweak Parameters In Technicolor Theories,''

1622: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 247}, 88 (1990);

1623: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B247,88;%%

1624: %

1625: M.~Golden and L.~Randall,

1626: %``Radiative Corrections To Electroweak Parameters In Technicolor Theories,''

1627: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 361}, 3 (1991);

1628: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B361,3;%%

1629: %

1630: M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Takeuchi,

1631: %``Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections,''

1632: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 381 (1992).

1633: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,381;%%

1634: 

1635: 

1636: \bibitem{STbound}

1637: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group Collaboration],

1638: %``Review of particle physics,''

1639: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).

1640: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%

1641: 

1642: 

1643: \bibitem{WTC}

1644: B.~Holdom,

1645: %``Techniodor,''

1646: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 150}, 301 (1985);

1647: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B150,301;%%

1648: %

1649: T.~Akiba and T.~Yanagida,

1650: %``Hierarchic Chiral Condensate,''

1651: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 169}, 432 (1986);

1652: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B169,432;%%

1653: %

1654: T.~W.~Appelquist, D.~Karabali and L.~C.~R.~Wijewardhana,

1655: %``Chiral Hierarchies And The Flavor Changing Neutral Current Problem In

1656: %Technicolor,''

1657: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 57}, 957 (1986);

1658: %%CITATION = PRLTA,57,957;%%

1659: %

1660: K.~Yamawaki, M.~Bando and K.~i.~Matumoto,

1661: %``Scale Invariant Technicolor Model And A Technidilaton,''

1662: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 56}, 1335 (1986);

1663: %%CITATION = PRLTA,56,1335;%%

1664: %

1665: T.~Appelquist and L.~C.~R.~Wijewardhana,

1666: %``Chiral Hierarchies And Chiral Perturbations In Technicolor,''

1667: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 35}, 774 (1987);

1668: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D35,774;%%

1669: %

1670: %T.~Appelquist and L.~C.~R.~Wijewardhana,

1671: %``Chiral Hierarchies From Slowly Running Couplings In Technicolor Theories,''

1672: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 36}, 568 (1987).

1673: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D36,568;%%

1674: 

1675: 

1676: \bibitem{RS}

1677: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,

1678: %``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,''

1679: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 3370 (1999)

1680: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905221].

1681: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905221;%%

1682: 

1683: 

1684: \bibitem{bulkgauge}

1685: H.~Davoudiasl, J.~L.~Hewett and T.~G.~Rizzo,

1686: %``Bulk gauge fields in the Randall-Sundrum model,''

1687: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 473}, 43 (2000)

1688: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911262];

1689: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911262;%%

1690: %

1691: A.~Pomarol,

1692: %``Gauge bosons in a five-dimensional theory with localized gravity,''

1693: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 486}, 153 (2000)

1694: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911294].

1695: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911294;%%

1696: 

1697: 

1698: \bibitem{AdSCFT}

1699: J.~M.~Maldacena,

1700: %``The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,''

1701: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2}, 231 (1998)

1702: [Int.\ J.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 38}, 1113 (1999)]

1703: [arXiv:hep-th/9711200];

1704: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9711200;%%

1705: %

1706: E.~Witten,

1707: %``Anti-de Sitter space and holography,''

1708: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2}, 253 (1998)

1709: [arXiv:hep-th/9802150];

1710: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802150;%%

1711: %

1712: H.~Verlinde,

1713: %``Holography and compactification,''

1714: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 580}, 264 (2000)

1715: [arXiv:hep-th/9906182];

1716: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906182;%%

1717: %

1718: J. Maldacena, unpublished remarks;

1719: %

1720: E. Witten, 1999 ITP Santa Barbara conference

1721: `New Dimensions in Field Theory and String Theory,',

1722: {\tt http://www.itp.ucsb.edu/online/susy

1723: c99/discussion};

1724: %

1725: E.~Verlinde and H.~Verlinde,

1726: %``RG-flow, gravity and the cosmological constant,''

1727: JHEP {\bf 0005}, 034 (2000)

1728: [arXiv:hep-th/9912018];

1729: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9912018;%%

1730: %

1731: N.~Arkani-Hamed, M.~Porrati and L.~Randall,

1732: %``Holography and phenomenology,''

1733: JHEP {\bf 0108}, 017 (2001)

1734: [arXiv:hep-th/0012148];

1735: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012148;%%

1736: %

1737: R.~Rattazzi and A.~Zaffaroni,

1738: %``Comments on the holographic picture of the Randall-Sundrum model,''

1739: JHEP {\bf 0104}, 021 (2001)

1740: [arXiv:hep-th/0012248].

1741: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012248;%%

1742: 

1743: 

1744: \bibitem{ETC}

1745: S.~Dimopoulos and L.~Susskind,

1746: %``Mass Without Scalars,''

1747: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 155}, 237 (1979);

1748: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B155,237;%%

1749: %

1750: E.~Eichten and K.~D.~Lane,

1751: %``Dynamical Breaking Of Weak Interaction Symmetries,''

1752: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 90}, 125 (1980).

1753: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B90,125;%%

1754: 

1755: 

1756: \bibitem{CG}

1757: A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,

1758: %``Walking Beyond The Rainbow,''

1759: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 314}, 7 (1989).

1760: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B314,7;%%

1761: 

1762: 

1763: \bibitem{strongtop}

1764: T.~Appelquist, M.~Einhorn, T.~Takeuchi and L.~C.~R.~Wijewardhana,

1765: %``Higher Mass Scales And Mass Hierarchies,''

1766: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 220}, 223 (1989);

1767: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B220,223;%%

1768: %

1769: V.~A.~Miransky and K.~Yamawaki,

1770: %``On Gauge Theories With Additional Four Fermion Interaction,''

1771: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 4}, 129 (1989);

1772: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A4,129;%%

1773: %

1774: K.~Matumoto,

1775: %``A New Problem And The Possible Solution In The Technicolored Preon Model,''

1776: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 81}, 277 (1989);

1777: %%CITATION = PTPKA,81,277;%%

1778: %

1779: V.~A.~Miransky, M.~Tanabashi and K.~Yamawaki,

1780: %``Dynamical Electroweak Symmetry Breaking With Large Anomalous Dimension And T

1781: %Quark Condensate,''

1782: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 221}, 177 (1989);

1783: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B221,177;%%

1784: %

1785: %V.~A.~Miransky, M.~Tanabashi and K.~Yamawaki,

1786: %``Is The T Quark Responsible For The Mass Of W And Z Bosons?,''

1787: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 4}, 1043 (1989).

1788: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A4,1043;%%

1789: 

1790: \bibitem{PMTC}

1791: %\bibitem{Appelquist:1997fp}

1792: T.~Appelquist, J.~Terning and L.~C.~R.~Wijewardhana,

1793: %``Postmodern technicolor,''

1794: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 79}, 2767 (1997)

1795: [arXiv:hep-ph/9706238].

1796: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706238;%%

1797: 

1798: 

1799: \bibitem{mack}

1800: G.~Mack,

1801: %``All Unitary Ray Representations Of The Conformal Group SU(2,2) With Positive

1802: %Energy,''

1803: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 55}, 1 (1977);

1804: %%CITATION = CMPHA,55,1;%%

1805: %

1806: S.~Minwalla,

1807: %``Restrictions imposed by superconformal invariance on quantum field

1808: %theories,''

1809: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2}, 781 (1998)

1810: [arXiv:hep-th/9712074].

1811: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9712074;%%

1812: 

1813: 

1814: \bibitem{Maldacena}

1815: O.~Aharony, A.~Fayyazuddin and J.~M.~Maldacena,

1816: %``The large N limit of N = 2,1 field theories from three-branes in  F-theory,''

1817: JHEP {\bf 9807}, 013 (1998)

1818: [arXiv:hep-th/9806159].

1819: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9806159;%%

1820: 

1821: \bibitem{strasslerCFT}

1822: M.~J.~Strassler,

1823: %``Non-supersymmetric theories with light scalar fields and large hierarchies,''

1824: arXiv:hep-th/0309122.

1825: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0309122;%%

1826: 

1827: 

1828: \bibitem{bulkfermions}

1829: Y.~Grossman and M.~Neubert,

1830: %``Neutrino masses and mixings in non-factorizable geometry,''

1831: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 474}, 361 (2000)

1832: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912408];

1833: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912408;%%

1834: %

1835: T.~Gherghetta and A.~Pomarol,

1836: %``Bulk fields and supersymmetry in a slice of AdS,''

1837: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 586}, 141 (2000)

1838: [arXiv:hep-ph/0003129];

1839: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003129;%%

1840: %

1841: S.~J.~Huber and Q.~Shafi,

1842: %``Higgs mechanism and bulk gauge boson masses in the Randall-Sundrum  model,''

1843: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 045010 (2001)

1844: [arXiv:hep-ph/0005286];

1845: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005286;%%

1846: %

1847: %S.~J.~Huber and Q.~Shafi,

1848: %``Fermion masses, mixings and proton decay in a Randall-Sundrum model,''

1849: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 498}, 256 (2001)

1850: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010195].

1851: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010195;%%

1852: 

1853: 

1854: \bibitem{Kaplan}

1855: D.~B.~Kaplan,

1856: %``Flavor at SSC energies: A New mechanism for dynamically generated fermion

1857: %masses,''

1858: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 365}, 259 (1991).

1859: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B365,259;%%

1860: 

1861: 

1862: \bibitem{Hopkins}

1863: K.~Agashe, A.~Delgado, M.~J.~May and R.~Sundrum,

1864: %``RS1, custodial isospin and precision tests,''

1865: JHEP {\bf 0308}, 050 (2003)

1866: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308036].

1867: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308036;%%

1868: 

1869: 

1870: \bibitem{cftee}

1871: A.~de Gouvea, A.~Friedland and H.~Murayama,

1872: %``Seiberg duality and e+ e- experiments,''

1873: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 105008 (1999)

1874: [arXiv:hep-th/9810020].

1875: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9810020;%%

1876: 

1877: 

1878: \bibitem{BZ}

1879: T.~Banks and A.~Zaks,

1880: %``On The Phase Structure Of Vector - Like Gauge Theories With Massless

1881: %Fermions,''

1882: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 196}, 189 (1982).

1883: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B196,189;%%

1884: 

1885: \bibitem{conformgap}

1886: T.~Appelquist, A.~Ratnaweera, J.~Terning and L.~C.~R.~Wijewardhana,

1887: %``The phase structure of an SU(N) gauge theory with N(f) flavors,''

1888: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 105017 (1998)

1889: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806472].

1890: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806472;%%

1891: 

1892: 

1893: \bibitem{BFbound}

1894: P.~Breitenlohner and D.~Z.~Freedman,

1895: %``Stability In Gauged Extended Supergravity,''

1896: Annals Phys.\  {\bf 144}, 249 (1982).

1897: %%CITATION = APNYA,144,249;%%

1898: 

1899: 

1900: \bibitem{Witten}

1901: I.~R.~Klebanov and E.~Witten,

1902: %``AdS/CFT correspondence and symmetry breaking,''

1903: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 556}, 89 (1999)

1904: [arXiv:hep-th/9905104].

1905: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9905104;%%

1906: 

1907: 

1908: \bibitem{SinRS}

1909: C.~Csaki, J.~Erlich and J.~Terning,

1910: %``The effective Lagrangian in the Randall-Sundrum model and electroweak

1911: %physics,''

1912: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 064021 (2002)

1913: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203034];

1914: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203034;%%

1915: %

1916: K.~Agashe, A.~Delgado, M.~J.~May and R.~Sundrum,

1917: %``RS1, custodial isospin and precision tests,''

1918: JHEP {\bf 0308}, 050 (2003)

1919: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308036];

1920: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308036;%%

1921: %

1922: G.~Cacciapaglia, C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean and J.~Terning,

1923: %``Oblique corrections from Higgsless models in warped space,''

1924: [arXiv:hep-ph/0401160].

1925: %CITATION = HEP-PH 0401160;%%

1926: 

1927: 

1928: \bibitem{Higgswidth}

1929: J.~Bagger, S.~Dawson and G.~Valencia,

1930: %``Effective field theory calculation of p p $\to$ V(L) V(L) X,''

1931: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 399}, 364 (1993)

1932: [arXiv:hep-ph/9204211];

1933: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9204211;%%

1934: %

1935: J.~Bagger, V.~D.~Barger, K.~Cheung, J.~F.~Gunion, T.~Han, G.~A.~Ladinsky, R.~Rosenfeld, C.~P.~Yuan,

1936: %``LHC analysis of the strongly interacting W W system:

1937: %Gold plated modes,''

1938: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 3878 (1995)

1939: [arXiv:hep-ph/9504426];

1940: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504426;%%

1941: %

1942: K.~Iordanidis and D.~Zeppenfeld,

1943: %``Searching for a heavy Higgs boson via the H $\to$ l nu j j decay mode at  the

1944: %CERN LHC,''

1945: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 3072 (1998)

1946: [arXiv:hep-ph/9709506];

1947: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709506;%%

1948: %

1949: H.~J.~He, Y.~P.~Kuang, C.~P.~Yuan and B.~Zhang,

1950: %``Anomalous gauge interactions of the Higgs boson:

1951: %Precision constraints and

1952: %weak boson scatterings. ((U)),''

1953: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 554}, 64 (2003)

1954: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211229];

1955: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211229;%%

1956: %

1957: B.~Zhang, Y.~P.~Kuang, H.~J.~He and C.~P.~Yuan,

1958: %``Testing anomalous gauge couplings of the Higgs boson via weak-boson

1959: %scatterings at the LHC,''

1960: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 114024 (2003)

1961: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303048].

1962: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303048;%%

1963: 

1964: \end{thebibliography}

1965: 

1966: \end{document}

1967: