1: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2: \part{The Higgs boson as a gauge field}
3:
4: {\it G.~Cacciapaglia}
5:
6: \begin{abstract}
7: The Higgs boson in the SM is responsible for the breaking of the electroweak symmetry.
8: However, its potential is unstable under radiative corrections.
9: A very elegant mechanism to protect it is to use gauge symmetry itself: it is possible in extra dimensional theories, where the components of gauge bosons along the extra direction play the role of special scalars.
10: We discuss two different attempts to build a realistic model featuring this mechanism.
11: The first example is based on a flat extra dimension: in this case the Higgs potential is completely finite and calculable.
12: However, both the Higgs mass and the scale of new physics result generically too light.
13: Nevertheless, we describe two possible approaches to solve this problem and build a realistic model.
14: The second possibility is to use a warped space, and realize the Higgs as a composite scalar.
15: In this case, the Higgs and resonances are heavy enough, however the model is constrained by electroweak precision observables.
16: \end{abstract}
17:
18: \section{INTRODUCTION}
19: %\section{Introduction
20:
21:
22: In the Standard Model of particle physics, the breaking of the electroweak symmetry is generated by a scalar field, the Higgs.
23: The minimal Higgs sector consists of a doublet of the weak SU(2)$_L$: a suitable potential for such scalar will induce a vacuum expectation value for it that will break the gauge symmetry and give a mass both to the weak gauge bosons, the $W$ and $Z$, and to the matter fermions.
24: This description is very successful from the experimental point of view: even though we do not have direct measurements in this sector, precision tests of the SM seem to be consistent with the presence of a relatively light Higgs, with mass between $115$ GeV and $\sim 300$ GeV.
25: The lower bound comes from direct searches at LEP, while the upper bound comes from the loop effects of the Higgs to precision observables~\cite{unknown:2005em}.
26:
27: Notwithstanding this success, the Higgs mechanism is still unsatisfactory from a theoretical point of view.
28: First of all, the potential is somehow put by hand and is not calculable for the Higgs boson is not protected by any symmetry.
29: Moreover, from an effective theory point of view, the potential is unstable: loop corrections will induce a dependence on some new physics that appears at high energies.
30: For instance, the mass term is quadratically sensitive to such new physics scale: the bounds on the Higgs mass would require this scale to be around $1$ TeV.
31: This scale is much lower that the expected UV scales, like the Planck mass where quantum gravity becomes relevant, at $10^{16}$ TeV, or Grand Unification scales, around $10^{11} \div 10^{13}$ TeV.
32: Unless a huge fine tuning is advocated, the SM contains a hierarchy between such scales.
33: Moreover, building a model with new physics at a TeV is very difficult, because of bounds coming from precision observables: higher order operators, that will generically be generated by such new physics, pose a bound on the new physics scale around $5 \div 10$ TeV~\footnote{This bound comes from universal operators. Bounds from flavour violating terms require a higher scale, around $100 \div 1000$ TeV.} \cite{Barbieri:2000gf}.
34:
35: A very appealing idea, utilizing extra dimensions, is to identify the Higgs boson as the component along some extra spatial dimension of a gauge boson, and it was first proposed in Refs.~\cite{Manton:1979kb,Hosotani:1983xw,Hatanaka:1998yp}.
36: In this way, the symmetry breaking does not come from a fundamental scalar of the theory, thus improving the stability of the mechanism.
37: Moreover, gauge invariance in the extra dimensional theory will highly constrain the potential, forbidding for instance a mass term.
38: Now, the loop contributions to the mass term will be insensitive to the cutoff of the theory, thus to the UV physics, and they may be responsible for EWSB.
39: The crucial point here is that such contributions are finite and calculable!
40: Due to gauge invariance itself, the EW scale will also be protected with respect to the UV cutoff.
41: The simplest possibility is to work in 5 dimensions: in this case there is only one extra component
42: \begin{equation}
43: A_M = (A_\mu, A_5)\,.
44: \end{equation}
45: The minimal requirements on the bulk gauge group $\mathcal{G}$ is that it has to contain the SM gauge group $\mathcal{G} \in$ SU(2)$_L \times$U(1)$_Y$, and a doublet of SU(2)$_L$, to be identified with the Higgs, is embedded in the adjoint representation.
46: The gauge group $\mathcal{G}$ is broken by an orbifold projection to the SM one $\mathcal{H}$ assigning different parities (or boundary conditions) to the gauge bosons of different generators.
47: This corresponds to~\footnote{This is the simplest possibilities. A more general set of orbifold projections has been studied in Ref.~\cite{Hebecker:2001jb}.}
48: \begin{equation}
49: \begin{array}{rl}
50: A^a_\mu (-y) = A^a_\mu (y) & \mbox{if}\, a \in \mathcal{H}\,, \\
51: A^b_\mu (-y) = - A^b_\mu (y) & \mbox{if}\, b \in \mathcal{G}/\mathcal{H}\,.
52: \end{array} \end{equation}
53: For the $A_5$ component, 5D Lorentz invariance imposes opposite parities.
54: Thus, there is a zero mode only along the broken generators: these are the only physical scalars in the spectrum, as all the massive modes of $A_5$ can be gauged away, and will play the role of the longitudinal modes of the massive vector bosons.
55: In other words, the Higgs doublet has to be contained in $A_5^b$.
56: The gauge transformations, at linear level, reads:
57: %
58: \begin{eqnarray}
59: A_\mu \rightarrow A_\mu + \partial_\mu \lambda (x, x_5) + i [ \lambda (x, x_5), A_\mu ]\,,\\
60: A_5 \rightarrow A_5 + \partial_5 \lambda (x, x_5) + i [ \lambda (x, x_5), A_5 ]\,.
61: \end{eqnarray}
62: This symmetry is enough to ensure that it is not possible to write down a tree level potential for $A_5$ in the bulk.
63: Indeed, the only invariant is the energy stress tensor
64: %
65: \begin{equation}
66: F_{M N} = \partial_M A_N - \partial_N A_M + i g [A_M, A_N]\,;
67: \end{equation}
68: being antisymmetric, $F_{55} = 0$.
69: The situation is more subtle on the fixed points of the orbifold: the gauge transformation parameter $\lambda$, has the same parities of the gauge fields $A_\mu$.
70: Thus, for the broken generators, $\lambda$ is odd: this means that on the fixed point $x_\star$
71: %
72: \begin{equation}
73: A_5^b (x_\star) \rightarrow A_5^b (x_\star) + \partial_5 \lambda^b (x_\star).
74: \end{equation}
75: This incomplete gauge transformation, however, is enough to forbid a potential localized on the fixed points.
76:
77: This argument can be generalized to more extra dimensions.
78: The first difference is that a potential is allowed by gauge invariance: indeed, $F_{i j}$, where $i$ and $j$ are along the extra dimensions, is gauge invariant.
79: In particular a quartic term may be generated at tree level.
80: However, it is generically possible to write a linear term in the energy stress tensor on the fixed points: this will generate tadpoles for the scalars, so that one has to choose the orbifold projection in order to forbid them~\cite{Scrucca:2003ra,Biggio:2004kr}.
81:
82: While this
83: mechanism offers great simplicity and elegance, building
84: a realistic model is very difficult. The main problems
85: are the lightness of the Higgs and of the top quark. Regarding the
86: top, the Yukawas are generated via the gauge coupling itself, so it
87: is generically hard to engineer a Yukawa of order 1 from a small
88: gauge coupling. Regarding the Higgs mass, it turns out to be too
89: small, below the value currently excluded by LEP, because the
90: quartic scalar interaction term is generated at one loop. Since the
91: entire potential (mass and quartic) is loop generated, the potential
92: will also generically prefer large values of the Higgs vacuum expectation value (VEV) relative
93: to the compactification scale so that the scale of new physics stays
94: dangerously low.
95: It is interesting to note that a deconstructed version of this mechanism~\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001nc} led to the idea of Little Higgs models.
96: The symmetry protecting the Higgs mass is now a discrete shift symmetry, and the construction is much less constrained by the absence of 5D Lorentz invariance.
97: In Little Higgs models, this idea has been pushed further: in this case the symmetry is protecting the Higgs mass at one loop, but allows a quartic coupling at tree level~\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002qy}.
98:
99: Several models, both in 5 (see Refs.~\cite{Kubo:2001zc,vonGersdorff:2002as,Haba:2002py,Scrucca:2003ut,Haba:2004qf,Cacciapaglia:2005da,Panico:2005dh}) and 6 (see Refs.~\cite{Antoniadis:2001cv,Csaki:2002ur,Hosotani:2004wv}) dimensions have been proposed in the literature, in the context of flat extra dimensions.
100: Another interesting development is to embed the same idea in a warped extra dimension~\cite{Randall:1999ee} as in Refs.~\cite{Contino:2003ve,Agashe:2004rs,Agashe:2005vg,Agashe:2005dk}.
101: The nice thing is that the warping enhances both the Higgs and top mass.
102: However, the non trivial background will also induce corrections to electroweak precision observables that constitute the strongest constraint on this models.
103: Interestingly, a correspondence fist developed in the string context allows to relate these theories to 4 dimensional ones, in particular to strongly coupled conformal theories (CFTs), where conformality is broken at the resonance scale.
104: From this point of view, the Higgs is a composite particle of the CFT, like in the Georgi-Kaplan theories in Refs.~\cite{Kaplan:1983sm,Georgi:1984ef,Georgi:1984af,Dugan:1984hq}.
105:
106: In the next sections we will briefly discuss the main features and differences of models in flat and warped space.
107: For simplicity we will focus on two simple examples, nice for their simplicity and minimality: the SU(3)$_w$ model in 5D of Ref.~\cite{Scrucca:2003ut} in flat space, and the minimal composite Higgs model of Ref.~\cite{Agashe:2004rs}.
108: However, the properties highlighted here are common to all the models proposed in the literature.
109:
110:
111:
112: \section{FLAT SPACE}
113: %\section{Flat space}
114:
115:
116: As already mentioned above, we need to embed the SM electroweak gauge group, SU(2)$_L \times $U(1)$_Y$, into a larger bulk gauge group, that contains a doublet of SU(2) in the adjoint representation.
117: This group is broken to the SM one by an orbifold projection: in this way, at energies below the compactification scale, only the SM gauge symmetry is unbroken.
118: A more general breaking of the symmetry can be achieved using boundary conditions: however in the following we will insist on the orbifold projection.
119: The reason is the absence of tree level corrections to electroweak precision observables: in this case, a zero mode like the $W$ and $Z$ is orthogonal to all the massive KK modes of other fields.
120: If the Higgs vev is constant along the extra dimension, as it is the case in flat space, it will not induce mixings between the zero modes and the KK modes: this is the source of universal corrections.
121: If the symmetry breaking is not given by an orbifold parity, but by boundary conditions, the orthogonality argument does not work any more.
122: We will comment more on this issue later.
123:
124: The simplest choice is to enlarge the weak group to SU(3)$_w$, and break it to SU(2)$_L \times$U(1)$_Y$ on the orbifold $S^1/Z_2$: an analysis of all the rank 2 groups can be found in Ref.~\cite{Csaki:2002ur}.
125: The adjoint of SU(3) decomposes into ({\bf 3}, 0) + ({\bf 2}, 1/2) + ({\bf 2}, -1/2) + ({\bf 1}, 0).
126: After the orbifold projection, the only (massless) scalar left in the theory is a complex doublet with hypercharge $1/2$, that we identify with the SM Higgs $H_5$.
127: As already mentioned, this scalar will not have any potential at tree level: however, loops will induce a potential that is insensitive to the UV cutoff, and thus calculable.
128: For the moment we will assume that such potential will induce a VEV for the Higgs, thus breaking the electroweak symmetry.
129: We can use SU(2) transformations to align the VEV, analogously to the SM case, and parametrize it
130: %
131: \begin{equation}
132: \langle H_5 \rangle = \sqrt{2} \left( \begin{array}{c}
133: 0\\
134: \alpha/R \end{array} \right)\,.
135: \end{equation}
136: It is now straightforward to compute the spectrum of the gauge bosons: we find
137: %
138: \begin{equation} \label{eq:spectrum}
139: M_{W n} = \frac{n+\alpha}{R}\,, \quad M_{Z n} = \frac{n + 2 \alpha}{R}\,, \quad M_{\gamma n} = \frac{n}{R}\,,
140: \end{equation}
141: where $n \in Z$, and we want to identify the lightest state in each tower with the SM gauge bosons, the photon, the $W$ and the $Z$.
142: Let us first point out that the spectrum is invariant if we shift $\alpha$ by an integer, and if we change its sign.
143: In other words, the physical range for $\alpha$ is $[0,1/2]$ and all other vacua outside this range are equivalent, as the radiatively induced potential will respect the same symmetries.
144: Another important feature is that $M_Z$ turns out to be twice the $W$ mass: this is a consequence of the gauge group SU(3) that predicts $\theta_W = \pi/3$.
145: One possible way to fix it is to add localized gauge kinetic terms: SU(3) being broken on the boundaries, such terms can be different for the SU(2) and U(1) and, if large enough, can dominate and fix the correct value of $\sin \theta_W$.
146: However, this scenario is equivalent to a warped extra dimension: integrating out a slice of the warped space near the Planck brane, where the warping is small, will mimic the localized kinetic terms, while the remaining space will be almost flat.
147: We will discuss the warped case in the next section: the main drawback is that it suffers from tree level corrections to the precision observables~\cite{Agashe:2005dk}.
148: Another possibility is to extend the gauge group with an extra U(1)$_X$.
149: In this case, if the bulk fermions are charged, only the combination of the two U(1)'s proportional to the hypercharge is anomaly free, and the orthogonal gauge boson will develop a mass~\cite{Antoniadis:2001cv}.
150: Alternatively, one can use boundary conditions to break U(1)$_w \times$U(1)$_X \to$ U(1)$_Y$,
151: for instance by twisting the BC on one of the two branes, such that no zero mode is left in the scalar sector~\footnote{Note however that these breaking mechanisms will reintroduce tree level oblique corrections, see Refs.~\cite{Cacciapaglia:2005da,Panico:2005dh}}.
152:
153: The next problem is how to generate a mass for the SM matter fields.
154: If we added bulk fermions, with chiral zero modes thanks to the orbifold projection, the Higgs VEV would generate a
155: spectrum similar to that in (\ref{eq:spectrum}): all the light modes would have masses larger than the $W$ mass, where the exact relation depends on group theory factors arising from the fermion representations.
156: Indeed, gauge invariance forces the Higgs to couple to bulk fields and with strength determined by the 5D gauge coupling $g_5$.
157: There are two possible solutions: one is to include odd masses for these fermions, that will localize the zero modes toward the two fixed points.
158: As modes with different chirality will be localized toward different points, this mechanism will reduce the overlaps between the wave functions, and generate hierarchies between the various Yukawa couplings.
159: Another possibility, adopted in~\cite{Csaki:2002ur,Scrucca:2003ra} is to localize the SM fermions on the fixed points, and then mix them with massive bulk fields that will induce an effective Yukawa coupling {\it a la} Froggatt-Nielsen.
160: In this case, the mass for the light fermions can be given either by small mixings, or by a large bulk mass that will exponentially suppress the effective Yukawa.
161: In the latter case, with order 1 masses, it is possible to explain the hierarchies in the Yukawa sector~\cite{Scrucca:2003ra,Panico:2005dh}.
162: The flavour structure of the theory for the first two generations has been studied in Ref.~\cite{Martinelli:2005ix}.
163:
164: The main problem in the fermion sector is then how to explain the heaviness of the top: indeed a bulk field will generically couple to the Higgs with the gauge coupling, predicting a fermion mass of order $m_W$.
165: A possible way to fit the top is to embed it in a large representation, such that the effective Yukawa is enhanced by a group theory factor.
166: This possibility has been exploited in Ref.~\cite{Cacciapaglia:2005da}: the authors find that the minimal representation of SU(3)$_w$ is a symmetric $\bf \bar {15}$.
167: This choice would predict $m_t = 2 m_W$ at tree level: QCD corrections might enhance the pole mass to a realistic value.
168: The main drawback of this possibility is that the largish representation will lower the scale where the extra dimensional theory becomes strongly coupled.
169: For the $\bf \bar 15$, using Naive Dimensional Analysis, we can estimate such scale to $2\div 3 \times 1/R$.
170: Moreover, the presence of a triplet of SU(2) in the decomposition of the $\bf \bar 15$ will introduce tree level correction to the coupling of the $b_l$ with the $Z$.
171: Such corrections come from the mixing with the zero mode of the triplet and not from the effect of the KK modes.
172: Removing the zero mode with a localized mass will induce mixing with the KK modes: this corrections can be translated into a bound on the compactification scale $1/R > 4\div 5$ TeV.
173: Another possibility pursued in Ref.~\cite{Panico:2005dh} is to explicitly break Lorentz invariance along the extra dimension.
174: In this case, each fermion will effectively feel a different length, thus removing the relation between the top and the $W$ masses.
175: The strong coupling scale is also lowered, but in a less dramatic way.
176: However, in this case, the Lorentz breaking will induce a UV cutoff sensitivity in the Higgs potential at higher loop level.
177: In Ref.~\cite{Panico:2005dh} the authors focus their attention on the flavour problem: again corrections to $Z b_l \bar b_l$ and 4 fermion operators induced from the gauge boson resonances~\cite{Strumia:1999jm,Cheung:2001mq} pose a bound on the scale $1/R$ of few TeV.
178:
179: Once the field content in the bulk is specified, it is possible to compute the Higgs potential as it is finite.
180: Their spectrum, as a function of the Higgs VEV $\alpha$, generically takes the form:
181: %
182: \begin{equation}
183: m_n^2 = M^2 + \frac{(n + \xi \alpha)^2}{R^2}\,, \quad n \in Z\,,
184: \end{equation}
185: where $\xi$ is determined by the representation of the field.
186: We can use the Higgs-dependent spectrum to compute the full one-loop potential, using the Coleman-Weinberg formula: after summing over the KK modes~\cite{Antoniadis:2001cv}, we find
187: %
188: \begin{equation} \label{eq:potgen}
189: V_{eff} (\alpha) = \frac{\mp 1}{32 \pi^2} \frac{1}{(\pi R)^4} \mathcal{F}_\kappa (\alpha)\,,
190: \end{equation}
191: where the signs stand for bosons/fermions and
192: %
193: \begin{equation}
194: \mathcal{F}_\kappa (\alpha) = \frac{3}{2} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{e^{- \kappa n} \cos (2 \pi \xi \alpha n)}{n^{3}} \left( \frac{\kappa^2}{3} + \frac{\kappa}{n} + \frac{1}{n^2} \right)\,,
195: \end{equation}
196: where $\kappa = 2 \pi M R$.
197: The contribution of fields with large bulk mass is exponentially suppressed.
198: Moreover, the leading contribution is given by
199: %
200: \begin{equation}
201: \pm \cos 2 \pi \xi \alpha\,.
202: \end{equation}
203: While bosons will not break the gauge symmetry, the fermion contribution will induce a VEV
204: %
205: \begin{equation}
206: \alpha_{min} = \frac{1}{2 \xi}\,.
207: \end{equation}
208: From the formula for the $W$ mass it follows that the compactification scale is given by
209: %
210: \begin{equation}
211: \frac{1}{R} = 2 \xi m_W\,.
212: \end{equation}
213: Thus, generically the mass of the resonances is too low, unless a very large representation is included in the theory, thus lowering the strong coupling scale to unacceptable values.
214: A possible way out is to consider cancellations between different bulk fields: it would be crucial to have fields that give a positive contribution to the Higgs mass, like a boson.
215: A scalar would be radiatively unstable, however a bulk fermion with twisted boundary conditions, or anti periodic along the extra dimension, will have the same effect~\cite{Haba:2002py, Haba:2004qf}.
216: Indeed, the spectrum is given by
217: %
218: \begin{equation}
219: m_n^2 = M^2 + \frac{(n + 1/2 + \xi \alpha)^2}{R^2}\,, \quad n \in Z\,.
220: \end{equation}
221: The contribution to the effective potential is given by the previous formulas, with $\xi \alpha \rightarrow \xi \alpha+1/2$.
222: As
223: $$\cos (2 \pi n (\xi \alpha+1/2)) = (-1)^n \cos (2 \pi n \xi \alpha)\,,$$
224: the twisted parity approximately flips the overall sign of the contribution.
225: In this way, we can get positive contributions to the Higgs mass arising from fermions.
226: In Ref.~\cite{Cacciapaglia:2005da}, the authors propose a minimal model where such cancellation does occur: they only consider bulk fermions that give mass to the third generations.
227: The presence of twisted fermions ensures that the scale $1/R$ can be naturally raised up to $\sim 20 m_W$, without a parametric fine tuning.
228:
229: Another generic problem is the value of the Higgs mass: being the potential loop induced, it is loop suppressed with respect to the $W$ mass.
230: However, the presence of several bulk fermions is enough to raise it above the direct LEP bound.
231: In the model of Ref.~\cite{Cacciapaglia:2005da}, the fermions associated with the third generation are enough to push the Higgs mass up to $\sim 150$ GeV, the precise value depending on the choice of representations.
232: In the Lorentz violating model of Ref.~\cite{Panico:2005dh}, the same mechanism enhancing the top mass works for the Higgs: in other words, the Higgs mass is set by the scale of the top resonances, and not the gauge boson ones.
233: In this way, Higgses as heavy as few hundred GeV are possible.
234:
235: A final comment regards the bounds on the scale $1/R$ in this kind of models.
236: As already mentioned, the flatness of the Higgs VEV generically ensures the absence of tree level universal corrections, because it does not mix the bulk zero modes with the KK resonances.
237: However, such corrections will be introduced back by large terms localized on the fixed points, that have the phenomenologically important role of getting rid of unwanted zero modes left over after the orbifold projection.
238: In the specific model we discuss here, the triplet in the top $\bf \bar {15}$ corrects $Z b \bar b$, and the extra U(1) induces a $\rho$ parameter and further corrections to $Z b \bar b$~\cite{Cacciapaglia:2005da}.
239: Such corrections bound $1/R > 4\div 5$ TeV, thus requiring a moderate fine tuning in the potential.
240: Another similar bound comes from four fermion operators, induced by the coupling of the localized light fermions with the KK resonances~\cite{Strumia:1999jm,Cheung:2001mq}: however, this bound depends on the light generations, that do not play a crucial role in the electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism.
241:
242:
243: \section{WARPED SPACE: A COMPOSITE HIGGS}
244: %\section{Warped space: a composite Higgs}
245:
246:
247: A different approach to the one described in the above section is to work with a warped extra dimension, like the one described by Randall and Sundrum in Ref.~\cite{Randall:1999ee}.
248: The metric is not a trivial extension of Minkowski, but can be written in a conformal way as
249: %
250: \begin{equation}
251: d s^2 = \frac{1}{(k z)^2} \left( dx_\mu dx^\mu - dz^2 \right)\,,
252: \end{equation}
253: where the extra coordinate $z$ ranges in the interval $[L_0, L_1]$.
254: The meaning of the warping is clear: the unit length defined by $d s^2$, or alternatively the energy scale, depends on the position along the extra dimension.
255: If $L_0 \sim 1/k$, then the energy scale on the endpoint $L_1$ is reduced (warped) by a factor of $k L_1$.
256: Generically, the scale $k \sim 1/L_0$ is taken to be equal to the cutoff of the theory, usually the Planck mass, while the scale $1/L_1$ is of order the electroweak scale.
257: This setup allows to explain geometrically the large hierarchy between the two scales~\cite{Randall:1999ee}.
258:
259: A very interesting aspect of this background is the presence of a duality, conjectured in string theory~\cite{Maldacena:1997re,Arkani-Hamed:2000ds,Rattazzi:2000hs,Perez-Victoria:2001pa}, that draws a correspondence with a 4 dimensional theory: we will very briefly sketch the main properties of this 4D theory, that will be useful to illustrate the 5D model building.
260: This theory is a strongly coupled conformal field theory (CFT), where the conformality is broken at a scale $\mu_{IR}$: this means that the spectrum will contain a tower of weakly coupled ``mesons'' with masses proportional to such scale.
261: We can also add elementary fields, external to the conformal sector, and couple them with the strongly coupled sector.
262: The idea is that the SM gauge bosons and fermions~\footnote{The top will be the only exception, as we will see.} are the elementary fields, and the breaking of the electroweak symmetry is generated by the quasi-conformal sector: in other words, the Higgs is a composite state of the strong sector, like in the models presented by Georgi and Kaplan in Refs~\cite{Kaplan:1983sm,Georgi:1984ef,Georgi:1984af,Dugan:1984hq}.
263: The holographic dual of this theory is a theory defined on a RS background: the elementary fields are the values of the 5D fields on the $L_0$ brane, that we will call Planck brane.
264: In particular, the gauge symmetries of the elementary sector will be the only unbroken gauge groups on the Planck brane.
265: On the other hand, the global symmetries of the conformal sector are translated into gauge symmetries in the bulk and on the $L_1$ brane, the TeV brane.
266: The scale $\mu_{IR}$ where conformality is broken, corresponds to the warped energy scale on the TeV brane.
267: The two theories are equivalent, meaning that they share the same physical properties: the only advantage of the 5D interpretation is that it is weakly coupled, up to a scale a few times higher that $\mu_{IR}$, and some properties, like the composite Higgs potential and VEV, are calculable.
268:
269: Another advantage of using a warped space is that both the Higgs and top masses are enhanced with respect to the flat case.
270: The Higgs VEV profile along the extra dimension is determined by the geometry, and in this case it will be linear in the coordinate $z$.
271: This means that a field localized toward the TeV brane has a larger overlap with the Higgs, thus its mass is enhanced.
272: As a consequence, the top has to live near the TeV brane, thus being a composite state in the 4D interpretation.
273: However, the non trivial profile for the Higgs VEV also generates mixing between zero modes and KK modes, in the 4D language between the elementary fields and the composite states.
274: These mixings will induce corrections to the couplings with fermions at tree level, in particular oblique and non oblique corrections.
275: Thus, EWPT will be the strongest bound on the parameter space of this theory.
276: The third generation also plays an important role: the heaviness of the top requires it to be a composite state.
277: However, this will also imply large deviations in the couplings of bottom and top with the weak gauge bosons.
278: The $Z b \bar b$ coupling and loop corrections to the $\rho$ parameter coming from the mass splitting between top and bottom will also severely constrain the model.
279:
280: A model of warped Gauge-Higgs unification was proposed in Ref.~\cite{Agashe:2004rs}.
281: The SM weak gauge group is extended to a SO(5)$_w \times$U(1)$_{B-L}$ in the bulk.
282: It is broken to the SM SU(2)$_L \times$U(1)$_Y$ on the Planck brane, such that the SM gauge bosons are indeed fields external to the CFT.
283: On the TeV brane SO(5) is broken to SO(4) $\sim$ SU(2)$_L \times$SU(2)$_R$.
284: The adjoint representation of the bulk group will contain a 4 of SO(4), namely a complex bidoublet of SU(2)$_L \times$SU(2)$_R$: the scalar zero mode arising from the $A_5$ component is then identified with the SM Higgs boson.
285: It is crucial the presence of a custodial symmetry in the bulk and TeV brane~\cite{Agashe:2003zs}: in the 4D interpretation it means that the CFT sector is invariant, so it will not induce large corrections to the $\rho$ parameter at tree level, ensuring the correct relation between the $W$ and $Z$ masses.
286: Fermions are added as complete SO(5) representations, one for each SM fermion, and boundary conditions will select a zero mode only for the component with the correct quantum numbers~\footnote{the BCs impose the vanishing of some components on the end points $L_0$ and $L_1$.
287: These BCs are equivalent to the orbifold parities used in the flat case. Components without a zero mode are like the anti periodic fermions.}.
288: A mass term in the bulk controls the localization of such zero modes, thus the overlap with the Higgs VEV.
289: The more localized on the Planck brane, the smaller the effective Yukawa coupling: in this way it is possible to generate the hierarchies in the fermion yukawa sector~\cite{Grossman:1999ra,Gherghetta:2000qt}.
290: The 4D interpretation makes this behaviour more clear: the light fields are elementary fields with a small mixing with the composite sector, that couples directly with the Higgs boson~\cite{Contino:2004vy}.
291: However, the heaviness of the top requires that at least the right-handed part is a composite, thus localized on the TeV brane.
292:
293: Once the field content is specified, it is possible to compute exactly the potential for the Higgs~\cite{Agashe:2004rs}.
294: The leading contributions are given by $\sin$ and $\cos$ functions, and can be parametrized as:
295: %
296: \begin{equation} \label{eq:warppot}
297: V (h) \sim \alpha \cos \frac{h}{f_\pi} - \beta \sin^2 \frac{h}{f_\pi}\,,
298: \end{equation}
299: where $h$ is the Higgs field, $f_\pi$ is the decay constant of the CFT resonances, in the 5D language $f_\pi = 2/\sqrt{g_5^2 k}\, 1/L_1$.
300: The $W$ mass is given by:
301: %
302: \begin{equation}
303: M_W = \frac{g^2}{2} v^2\,, \quad \mbox{where} \quad v = \epsilon f_\pi = f_\pi \sin \frac{<h>}{f_\pi} = 246 \mbox{GeV}\,.
304: \end{equation}
305: The parameter $\epsilon$ is crucial in these models: it controls the size of the extra dimension $L_1$ in terms of the SM weak scale, and the size of the tree level corrections.
306: Using the approximate formula in Eq.~\ref{eq:warppot}, it is given by:
307: %
308: \begin{equation}
309: \epsilon \sim \sqrt{1-\left(\frac{\alpha}{2\beta}\right)^2}\,,
310: \end{equation}
311: thus in order to have a small VEV with respect to the new physics scale $f_\pi$ some fine tuning in the potential is required, as in the flat case.
312: The corrections to electroweak precision observables will also depend on $\epsilon$ thus constraining its size: $S \sim \epsilon^2$, $T \sim \epsilon^6$, while from the third generation $\delta g_{Z b_l \bar b_l} \sim \epsilon^2$, $T_{\mbox{1-loop}} \sim \epsilon^2$.
313: The precise bound on $\epsilon$ depends on other parameters, especially the ones involved in the third generation sector.
314: A very detailed analysis has been performed in Ref.~\cite{Agashe:2005dk}: they find that universal corrections only requires $\epsilon \leq 0.4\div 0.5$, values that can be obtained without any significant fine tuning in the potential.
315: However, if one includes the constraints from the third generation, both $Z b \bar b$ and loop corrections to $\rho$, $\epsilon \leq 0.2$ is required.
316: Such corrections might be removed if the third generation is introduced in a non minimal way, as discussed in Ref.~\cite{Agashe:2005dk}.
317:
318: An interesting prediction of this model is the lightness of the Higgs.
319: In all the numerical examples studied in Ref.~\cite{Agashe:2005dk} the authors find $m_H \leq 140$ GeV.
320: Moreover, the model predicts the presence of resonances of gauge bosons and fermions at a scale that depends from the value of $\epsilon$: it can be as low as $2$ TeV if the bounds from the third generation are removed, thus being accessible at LHC.
321: However, the corrections to $Z b \bar b$ constrain the new particles above $4$ TeV.
322: Thus model also contains a nice feature: unification of the 3 SM gauge couplings at a level comparable to the supersymmetric model~\cite{Agashe:2005vg}.
323: This feature does not depend on the details of the strong sector, but only to the composite nature of the Higgs and the right-handed top.
324:
325: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
326: %\section{Conclusions}
327:
328: We have described a mechanism that protects the Higgs potential from divergent radiative corrections using the gauge symmetry in extra dimensions.
329: The Higgs is indeed the component of a gauge field along the extra direction.
330: After the orbifold breaking, a shift symmetry will highly constrain the potential at tree level, ensuring its finiteness.
331: In particular, in the presence of only one extra dimension, the potential is completely radiative and calculable.
332: The presence of bulk fermions will then induce a non trivial minimum and thus drive electroweak symmetry breaking.
333: In the literature, two main direction has been pursued: flat and warped extra dimensions.
334: The nice property of the flat background is that the Higgs VEV is constant in the extra coordinate, thus potentially avoiding tree level corrections to precision observables coming from the mixing between KK levels.
335: However, it is generically hard to get a realistic spectrum: the scale of new physics results too light, and the Higgs and top masses are too small.
336: A possible way to enhance the scale $1/R$ is to allow cancellations in the potential, using anti periodic fermions: in this way, scales above a TeV scan be obtained without fine tuning.
337: To enhance the top mass, it is possible either to embed it into a largish representation of the bulk gauge group, or to break explicitly the Lorentz invariance along the extra dimension.
338: This also allows to get a heavy enough top.
339: In the warped case, the distorted background enhance the masses naturally, via different wave function overlaps.
340: However, the Higgs VEV is not flat anymore and tree level corrections will bound the model.
341: In both cases, the size of the extra dimension, i.e. the scale of the KK resonances, is constrained to be larger that $4\div 5$ TeV, thus being unobservable at LHC.
342:
343:
344: \section*{Acknowledgements}
345:
346: This research is supported by the NSF grant PHY-0355005.
347:
348:
349:
350: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
351: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
352: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------