1: \documentclass[prl,showpacs, twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
3: \begin{document}
4: \title{Naturalness and Naturalness Criteria}
5:
6: \author{Su Yan}
7: \email{yans@northwestern.edu}
8: \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
9: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60201}
10: \date{\today}
11:
12: \begin{abstract}
13: We analysis how to describe the level of naturalness and pointed out that
14: Barbieri and Giudice's the widely adopted sensitivity criteria
15: of naturalness can not reflect the level of naturalness correctly,
16: we analysis the problems of the sensitivity criteria and proposed
17: a new criterion that can solve these problems, and also give a clear
18: physical meaning to the naturalness cut-off level.
19: \end{abstract}
20:
21: \pacs{11.10.Hi,12.10.Kt,12.60.Jv,14.80.Bnb}
22:
23: \maketitle
24:
25: The physical principle of naturalness introduced by Wilson and
26: 't Hooft\cite{Wilson} requires that in order to get a small observable parameters at
27: the weak scale,
28: we do not need to extremely fine-tune the lagrangian parameters at the
29: grand unification scale.
30: For example, the renormalization of \(\Phi^4\) model:
31:
32: \begin{equation}
33: \mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}[(\partial_{\mu}\Phi)^2-m^2_0\Phi^2]-\frac{g}{4!}\Phi^4
34: \label{equ-1}
35: \end{equation}
36:
37: the scalar mass \(m^2\) can be written as:
38: \begin{equation}
39: m^2=m^2_0-g^2\Lambda^2
40: \label{equ0}
41: \end{equation}
42: Where \(m^2_0\) is the bare mass, and
43: \(\Lambda\) is the cut-off scale. Because both bare mass and the cut-off
44: scale are around \(10^{18} GeV\), in order to have a small weak scale
45: renormalized mass \(m^2\), we need a fine-tuning mechanism.
46:
47: Similar cases are widely existed in renormalizations and various
48: mixing mechanisms. The naturalness principle requires
49: that, any realistic model won't need too much fine-tuning, it also
50: requires that the lagrangian parameters can not choose the values that will result in
51: excessive fine-tuning. It is one of the main reasons that
52: we prefer the supersymmetric standard model, and it is also the main consideration
53: when we build a neutrino mass mechanism. These tasks requires a naturalness criteria that
54: can reflect the level of naturalness correctly.
55:
56: The sensitivity criteria proposed by R. Barbirei and G.F.Giudice et al.\cite{BG}
57: is the first widely adopted quantitative indicator of the naturalness level.
58: Its idea is quite simple, If \(x_0\) is a input lagrangian parameter at the grand unification scale,
59: and \(y\) is a computed observable output parameter like masses, Yukawa couplings etc at the weak scale,
60: if we varies lagrangian parameter \(x_0\) at the grand unification scale,
61: the corresponding computed weak scale observable parameter \(y\) will be varied,
62: Barbieri and Giudice's sensitivity criteria \(c\) is defined as:
63:
64: \begin{equation}
65: c=\vert \frac{\Delta y/y}{\Delta x_0/x_0}\vert=\vert \frac{\partial \ln y}{\partial \ln x_0}\vert
66: \label{equ2}
67: \end{equation}
68:
69: Here need to emphasis that we usually need to consider the effect of a parameter on
70: another parameter that has different canonical dimension. we prefer a dimensionless
71: \(c\), thus Barbieri and Giudice chooses \(\Delta y/y\) as the basis of comparison.
72:
73: Barbieri and Giudice set \(c\approx10\) as the naturalness cut-off,
74: any \(c\) much greater than \(10\) will be classified as fine-tuned. Since then
75: hundreds authors apply this criteria to various problems, from setting a
76: naturalness contour for SUSY particle search\cite{Azuelos:2002qw},
77: to the fine-tuning problem of the neutrino
78: seesaw mechanism\cite{Casas:2004gh}.
79: Barbieri and Giudice's sensitivity criteria has been widely adopted
80: as the doctrine of naturalness judgment.
81:
82: But Barbieri and Giudice's sensitivity criteria is not reliable, many examples\cite{GWA}\cite{CS}
83: show that it fails for certain cases, because the sensitivity criteria plays
84: an important role in new model building, it is worth to investigate the relationship
85: between the naturalness and the sensitivity, and find a correct and reliable criteria.
86:
87:
88: In mathematics, naturalness can be classified as a type of initial condition sensitivity
89: problem. Find how large the probability is for a output parameter in a
90: certain range of values is the best way to describe the initial condition sensitivity.
91: If we have a system with an input parameter \(x_0\) and a corresponding output
92: parameter \(y\), If the probability of the input parameter around the value \(x_0\)
93: is much smaller than the probability of the output parameter around the value \(y\),
94: then the system is initial condition sensitive, which means need fine-tuning in physics.
95:
96: If we assume the input parameter \(x_0\) has a uniform probability distribution,
97: then the output parameter \(y\) will have a probability distribution of
98: \(\vert \partial x_0/\partial y\vert \),
99: if we choose \(\vert \partial y/\partial x_0\vert \), the inverse function of the output parameter
100: probability distribution
101: as a criteria to judge fine-tuning, then those parameter regions that will result in
102: too small probability distribution \(\vert \partial x_0/\partial y\vert \), or too big
103: its inverse function \(\vert \partial y/\partial x_0\vert \) can be classified as the
104: fine-tuned region.
105:
106: Because we need to consider the fine-tuning property with two different types
107: of parameters, for example, compare masses with the gauge couplings, and we also want
108: a dimensionless fine-tuning indicator that does not depend on the parameters we are comparing.
109: So Barbieri and Giudice's sensitivity criteria chooses the logarithmic function
110: \(\vert \partial \ln y/\partial \ln x_0\vert \) as a fine-tuning criterion.
111: Although \(c\) becomes dimensionless, while changing from \(\vert \partial y/\partial x_0\vert \)
112: to \(\vert \partial \ln y/\partial \ln x_0\vert \) means we have changed the assumption that
113: the probability distribution of the input parameter \(x\) from the uniform distribution to
114: \(y(x_0)/x_0\) distribution, which means we assumed that lagrangian parameters tend to choose
115: certain values at the grand unification scale. Obviously this will greatly influenced the
116: naturalness judgment.
117:
118: For example, if we apply Barbieri and Giudice's
119: formula (Eq.~(\ref{equ2})) to the \(\Phi^4\) model (Eq.~(\ref{equ-1})).
120: Clearly from Eq.~(\ref{equ0}) we know the scalar mass is highly fine-tuned.
121: But on the other hand, if we integrate the mass renormalization group equation, we have:
122:
123: \begin{equation}
124: m^2=m^2_0 \exp (\int_0^t(g^2/16\pi^2-1)dt)
125: \label{Prob2}
126: \end{equation}
127:
128: Apply Barbieri and Giudice's sensitivity definition to Eq.~(\ref{Prob2}), it gives a result of
129: sensitivity \(\partial\ln m^2/\partial\ln m^2_0\) equals to one, and it is not fine-tuned.
130:
131: Obviously, the origin of this problem is whatever energy scale it is, the ratio \(\Delta m^2/m^2\)
132: is always fixed, Chosen the logarithumic function of the parameter rather than the parameter
133: itself as a basis of comparison means we assume the variation ratio of the langrangian
134: parameter rather than the parameter itself is even probability distributed at the grand unification
135: scale. Thus even \(\Delta m^2\) is only around hundreds \(GeV^2s\) while \(\Delta m^2\) is
136: around \(10^{36} GeV^2\), we still think they are equivalent. Generally,
137: the consequence of this is, if any parameter runs as an
138: Exponent function \(y=y_0\exp(f)\) as energy scale \(t\) changes, if the exponent
139: \(f=f(t)\) happens to be a function of the energy scale \(t\) only, then even \(f\) is
140: very large, and \(y\) blows up so quickly as \(t\) increased
141: Barbieri and Giudice's sensitivity criteria will still give a sensitivity equals to \(1\) result,
142: which tells you that the pure scalar field is not fine-tuned. Only when the index \(f\) is
143: not only the function of \(t\), but also the function of \(y_0\),
144: then will Barbieri and Giuice's sensitivity criteria give a not equal to one sensitivity.
145:
146: Return to the renormalization, normally the exponent \(f\) is consists of a constant part,
147: several anonymous dimension parts \(\gamma_i\), some of the anonymous dimension parts are
148: depend on the lanrangian parameters \(x_0\), some are not, although those parts of exponent
149: that not depended on \(x_0\) will contribute the fine-tuning,
150: it will still be ignored by Barbieri and Giudice's sensitivity criteria.
151: The anonymous dimension part reflects the relative changing of various parameters, and will depend on
152: the initial conditions like masses, coupling constants,
153: it is obvious, if we adopted Barbieri and Giudice's criteria to calculate
154: the sensitivity, this part will give a not equal to one result.
155: so in the fact, What Barbieri and Giudice et al.'s sensitivity criteria judged is not the initial
156: condition sensitivity, but the anonymous dimension sensitivity,
157: which reflects how much a parameter depends on the relative changes of the various parameters.
158: So we'd better call Barbieri and Giudice et al.'s sensitivity ``anonymous sensitivity'' rather
159: than the initial condition sensitivity.
160:
161: Besides the above mentioned problem, the sensitivity criteria have many other problems.
162: After Barbieri and Giudice's naturalness criteria has been proposed, G. Anderson et al\cite{GWA}
163: first pointed out that under certain circumstances Barbieri and Giudice's
164: naturalness criteria failed to give a correct result that consistent with known phenomena.
165: P. Ciafaloni et al\cite{CS} also gave examples show that Barbieri and Giudice's naturalness
166: judgment is not valid under certain circumstances.
167:
168: The example given by G. Anderson et al\cite{GWA} is regarding the high sensitivity
169: of \(\Lambda_{QCD}\) to the strong coupling constant \(g\),
170:
171: \begin{equation}
172: \Lambda_{QCD}=M_P\exp{(-\frac{(4\pi)^2}{bg^2(M_P)})}
173: \label{equ8}
174: \end{equation}
175:
176: Apply Barbieri and Giudice et al's definition of naturalness indicator we
177: can calculate the sensitivity of \(\Lambda_{QCD}\) to the strong coupling
178: constant \(g\) at the grand unification scale:
179: \begin{equation}
180: C(g)=\frac{4\pi}{b}\frac{1}{\alpha_s(M_P)}
181: \label{equ9}
182: \end{equation}
183: This value is greater than 100, much larger than the naturalness upper
184: bound set by Barbieri and Giudice. but actually it
185: is protected by gauge symmetry, and is not fine tuned.
186:
187: Carefully examed examples similar to the large sensitivity of \(\Lambda_{QCD}\),
188: we found all these examples occur when comparing parameters with different canonical
189: dimensions. Mathematically, comparing two parameters with different canonical dimensions
190: is difficult, Barbieri and Giudice did aware this difficulty, and introduced the
191: logarithmic function to rescale each parameter to a dimensionless formation, they thought this could be
192: sufficient to eliminated the effects of the scale difference and dimensional difference,
193: but these examples show that, this method can not cancel these effects.
194:
195: We know generally, there's a Gaussian fixed point at the origin of the parameter space
196: for renormalization group equations. around the origin,
197: If we rescale the momenta by a factor of \(\Lambda\), then two different parameters
198: \(\tau\) and \(h\) can be expanded as:
199: \begin{equation}
200: \tau\approx\Lambda^{\alpha}\tau_0
201: \end{equation}
202: \begin{equation}
203: h\approx\Lambda^{\beta}h_0
204: \end{equation}
205: Here \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\) are corresponding canonical dimensions.
206: Because of the renormalization, the scale \(\Lambda\) will link these two parameters together.
207: even they may not have any other relations.
208: If we calculate the sensitivity of \(h\) to the variation of
209: \(\tau\), approximately, it would be:
210:
211: \begin{equation}
212: \frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\approx -\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\frac{h}{\tau}
213: \end{equation}
214:
215: This effect was known as scaling effect in statistical physics, which exists anywhere
216: when two parameters have different canonical dimensions, obviously,
217: it has nothing to do with the fine-tuning. but when
218: we convert both parameters to dimensionless parameters by Barbieri and
219: Giudice's technique, the factor of different canonical dimension \(-\beta/\alpha\)
220: is still there, this is because the scaling phenomena is not linear, it can not be eliminated by
221: Barbieri and Giudice's technique.
222:
223: If one parameter \(\tau\) has a marginal canonical dimension, then we can not use the
224: above argument, we must consider the
225: higher order term. take various couplings renormalization as an example:
226: \begin{equation}
227: \tau\approx(1+\alpha\tau_0\ln\frac{1}{\Lambda})\tau_0
228: \end{equation}
229:
230: Similarly, the result would be:
231: \begin{equation}
232: \frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\approx\frac{\beta}{\alpha\tau}\frac{h}{\tau}
233: \end{equation}
234:
235: We can define a dimensional effect factor
236: \(\Delta=\beta h/\alpha\tau^2\) or
237: \(\beta h/\alpha\tau^2\) for later reference. In the parameter space if two parameters have
238: the same dimension then \(\Delta\) becomes one, otherwise this factor may become significant,
239: A schematic diagram is shown in Fig.\ref{Fig1}.
240:
241: \begin{figure}
242: \includegraphics[angle=90, width=0.5\textwidth]{xscale.ps}
243: \caption{RG trajectories in phase space spanned by two parameters with different dimension}
244: \label{Fig1}
245: \end{figure}
246:
247: If we look the naturalness problem from the phase diagram spanned by all the parameters
248: (Fig.\ref{Fig1}),
249: There is a small area in this phase diagram which represents the weak scale, and
250: there is also an area represents the grand unification scale, the renormalization flows
251: run from the grand unification scale area and go to the weak scale area,
252: the ``naturalness'' requires that, whatever initial condition we choose, the weak scale area
253: is always smaller or, maybe a little large than the grand unification scale area,
254: even the ratio \(\Delta h_0/\Delta\tau_0\) is big.
255: So it is better to understand the naturalness principle as the weak scale stability rather
256: than the small sensitivity. High sensitivity doesn't mean unnatural.
257:
258: The effect of different canonical dimensions is widely existed, for example, at low temperature,
259: the Plank radiation law becomes
260: \(E_{\nu}=\frac{8\pi h\nu^3}{c^3}e^{-h\nu/kT}\),
261: If we calculate the sensitivity of \(E_{\nu}\) to the variation of the temperature, consider
262: \(T\approx 4k\), and \(\nu\approx 10^{15}Hz\), then you
263: will have an extremely large sensitivity \(c\approx 10^4\), but we never doubt the correctness
264: of the Plank radiation law.
265:
266: Besides these problems, The sensitivity criteria also implied the relationship between
267: the input and the output is monotonic, only the input parameter \(x\) can lead to the output
268: parameter \(y\), there's no such circumstance that both input parameters \(x_1\) and \(x_2\)
269: will eventually lead to a same output parameter \(y\).
270:
271: Although the relationships between parameters linked by most renormalization group equations
272: are monotonic, while most mixing cases are not, one output parameter is usually
273: corresponding to two input parameters. For example, mixing of \(M_z\) mass and \(M_W\) mass,
274: mixing of CP-even Higgs masses in Supersymmetric Standard Models, and mixing of fermionic masses etc.
275:
276: Take the mixing of \(M_z\) mass in MSSM model as an example, calculate the \(M_z\) mass
277: at the initial condition (at grand unification scale) \(m=200, M=40, \tan\beta=18 \),
278: and gradually reduced mass \(m\), then we will find the non-monotonic relationship between
279: grand unification scale variable \(m\) and weak scale variable \(M_z\).
280:
281: Obviously, it is not a monotonic function of \(m\), for example, if weak scale mass
282: \(M_z\) is around \(80GeV\), there are two grand unification scale parameter regions that
283: can contribute this result, one is around \(m\) is \(80GeV\), the other region is around
284: \(m\) is \(150GeV\). Barbieri and Giudice's definition only counted one region's contribution
285: , it will overestimate the naturalness level.
286: We should count all possible GUT scale parameters contributions.
287:
288: A good definition of naturalness criteria should be able to solve all the problems
289: listed above. Because the problems listed above, we can not choose the logarithmic function,
290: instead, we need to use \(\partial y/\partial x_0\)
291: directly. refers to the definition of Lyapunov exponent, which used to define the
292: initial condition sensitivity in dynamical systems, we can write down the \(t\) evolution of the
293: probability distribution to the variation of \(x_0\):
294:
295: \begin{equation}
296: \frac{\delta y}{\delta x_0}=\Delta_0 e^{\lambda t}
297: \end{equation}
298:
299: The dimensionless factor \(\lambda\) reflects the shrinkage of the probability,
300: here \(\Delta_0\) is a kind of background probability density at the grand unification scale
301: which need to be subtracted,
302: mathematically,
303: \(\lambda\) reflects the level of \(y\) fine-tuning when \(x_0\) changes.
304: when the parameters \(x\) and \(y\) have the same
305: canonical dimension, \(\Delta_0\) becomes one, also considering the
306: non-monotonic propriety, finally we can define a Lyapunov exponent like index \(\lambda\)
307: for the naturalness criteria:
308: \begin{equation}
309: \lambda=\frac{1}{t}\ln\sum\vert\frac{1}{\Delta_0}\frac{\delta y}{\delta x_0}\vert
310: \end{equation}
311: If it is not monotonic, we divided and sum over all monotonic regions.
312:
313: Although the fine-tuning criteria problem in high energy physics is somewhat
314: similar to the problem of using Lyapunov exponent to judge whether a
315: nonlinear system is chaos or not, these two situations also have
316: important difference.
317: In nonlinear physics, if the Lyapunov exponent is negative, then the phase
318: space shrinks while time increases, it is obviously not initial condition sensitive,
319: thus it is not chaos, if the Lyapunov exponent is greater than zero, then the system is
320: initial condition sensitive and will be classified as chaos.
321: Similarly, when we consider the fine-tuning problem in high energy physics,
322: if \(\lambda<0\), for the same reason, we can easily classify the system as not
323: initial condition sensitive of not fine-tuning, but for the cases that have
324: \(\lambda>0\), the situation is a little more complex, this is because for systems
325: in nonlinear physics,
326: the time variable \(t\) can go to infinity while in high energy physics,
327: the running parameter \(t\) can not go beyond the grand unification scale,
328: which is around \(38\). so for the situations that have
329: small positive \(\lambda\), even the range of grand unification parameter space
330: is a little bigger than the weak scale parameter space, it still can be
331: thought as not initial condition sensitive, or not fine-tuned. So we should define
332: a reasonable positive fine-tuning upper limit for \(\lambda\).
333:
334: In probability theory people usually define the probability \(p<0.05\) as
335: small probability event and can be considered as hard to happen, although this is a more strict
336: condition than Barbieri and Giudice's
337: sensitivity less than \(10\) criteria, we still adopt this doctrine, and define a upper limit
338: for the fine-tuning. Suppose fine-tuning occurs when \(p<0.05\), that means \(\exp(\lambda t)=1/0.05\),
339: we immediately have the upper limit of the \(\lambda\) index is 0.08.
340: According to this definition, all parameters with \(\lambda <0.08\) will be safe
341: and not fine-tuned, and if \(\lambda > 0.08\) we learn that it is less than 5\% of chance
342: to have this weak scale value thus quite impossible. Not like Barbieri and Giudice's
343: naturalness \(c\approx 10\) cut-off, which doesn't have any physical meaning, our method
344: gives a clear physical meaning of the naturalness cut-off.
345:
346: Numerical calculations with both Barbieri and Giudice's sensitivity criteria and \(\lambda\)
347: show that, for the cases with zero engineering dimension \(4-\frac{3}{2}n_f-n_b\) and both
348: parameters have the same canonical dimension, and the relations are monotonic,
349: the difference is not significant, this is because the effect of anonymous dimensions \(\gamma_i\)
350: are similar. for MSSM model, when \(M=40 GeV, m=83.5GeV\) and \(\tan\beta =18\), sensitivity
351: of \(m_h\) to the variation of \(m\) equals to 1, while new criteria when
352: \(m=68.5GeV\) \(\lambda\) becomes
353: positive. But for \(\Phi^4\) model scalar mass,
354: which has engineering dimension equals to \(1\), sensitivity \(c=1<10\), while
355: \(\lambda=1+\frac{g^2_{GUT}}{32\pi^2}\), greater than \(0.08\).
356: For the large sensitivity of \(\Lambda_{QCD}\), it is not difficult to calculate that
357: \(\lambda=(\ln\frac{\Lambda_{QCD}}{gM_P})/t\), which is far less than \(0.08\).
358: for non-monotonic case \(M_z\), if \(M_z=89.05GeV\), which corresponding to \(m=188.5GeV\) and
359: \(m=65.1GeV\) at the grand unification scale, we calculated that sensitivity
360: \(c=0.499\) and \(c=0.910\) respectively. while \(\lambda\) for \(M_z=89.05GeV\) is \(-0.046\).
361:
362: In this paper we have investigated the widely adopted sensitivity criteria of naturalness,
363: we found when comparing parameters with different canonical dimensions the sensitivity
364: usually will be very big, this should be understood as the scaling effect rather than the
365: fine-tuning, under these circumstances the sensitivity is larger than the level of
366: naturalness fine-tuning. When comparing parameters with the same canonical dimensions
367: what we get is a type of ``anonymous sensitivity'', the result may be larger
368: or may be smaller than the true level of naturalness fine-tuning.
369: All the calculations based on sensitivity
370: criteria become unreliable. In summary, the widely adopted
371: sensitivity criteria is not reliable, can not truly reflect the naturalness properties.
372: We defined a new criteria to solve all the problems the sensitivity criteria has, and also
373: gives a clear physical meaning to the naturalness cut-off value.
374:
375:
376:
377: \acknowledgements{The author would like to thank Dr. G.W. Anderson for advising,
378: This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy,
379: Division of High Energy Physics under grant No. DE-FG02-91-ER4086.}
380:
381:
382: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
383:
384: \bibitem[1]{Wilson} K. Wilson, as quoted by L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D {\bf20}, 2619, (1979),
385: G. 't Hooft, in: Recent Development in Gauge Theories, eds. G.'t Hooft et al.
386: p.135, Plenum Press, New York, (1980)
387: \bibitem[2]{BG} R. Barbieri, G.F. Giudice Nucl. Phys. B {\bf306}, 63, (1988)
388: J. Ellis, K. Enqvist, D.V. Nanopoulos, F. Zwirner, Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 1}, 57, (1986),
389: \bibitem[3]{Azuelos:2002qw}
390: G.~Azuelos {\it et al.},
391: ``The beyond the standard model working group: Summary report,''
392: arXiv:hep-ph/0204031.
393: \bibitem[4]{Casas:2004gh}
394: J.~A.~Casas, J.~R.~Espinosa and I.~Hidalgo,
395: JHEP {\bf 0411}, 057 (2004)
396: \bibitem[5]{GWA} Greg W. Anderson, Diego J. Casta\~{n}o, Phys. Lett. B {\bf347}, 300, (1995)
397: \bibitem[6]{CS} Paolo Ciafaloni, Alessandro Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf494}, 41, (1997)
398: \end{thebibliography}
399: \end{document}
400:
401:
402:
403:
404:
405:
406:
407: