text:
# Solitons in 2+1 Dimensional Non-Commutative Maxwell Chern-Simons Higgs Theories

## 1 Introduction

In the last few years, the noncommutative field theories have attracted considerable attention. This is primarily because such theories appear naturally in the various limits of M theory, as limits of string theories with backgrounds of open strings terminating on D2 branes, and are also relevant to aspects of string and D-brane dynamics -. They also appear as theories describing the behaviour of a two dimensional electron gas in the presence of a strong, external magnetic field, the quantum Hall effect . They exhibit an interesting space uncertainty relation . Being non-local, understanding of these theories will help us in understanding the consequences of the breakdown of locality at short distances.

By now, several people have looked at both the perturbative and non-perturbative aspects of the non-commutative field theories. In particular, several people -, among many others, have looked at the soliton solutions in such theories. For example, Jatkar et. al. , Lozano et. al.  as well as Polychronakos  and Bak et. al.  have looked at non-commutative $`U(1)`$ gauge theory with Higgs field and have obtained the vortex (or what Polychronakos calls as the flux tube) solutions. There is an important difference between the solutions obtained in  and the other two. In particular, whereas the solutions obtained in the former are singular in the $`\theta 0`$ limit ($`\theta `$ being the non-commutative parameters defined below), the solutions obtained in the other two papers are nonsingular in this limit.

The purpose of this note is to look at the role of the Chern-Simons term on these flux tube solutions. In particular, we consider the non-commutative abelian Higgs model with Chern-Simons term in $`2+1`$ dimensions and obtain soliton solutions which represent flux tubes with both static electric and magnetic fields. It turns out that whereas our solutions are singular in the $`\theta 0`$ limit, they smoothly go over to the known solutions  in the limit of the Chern-Simons coefficient going to zero. Many authors have considered non-commutative gauge theories with a Chern-Simons term added . The specific case of self-dual solitons has been studied by Lozano et. al. .

Non-commutative gauge theories are described via two equivalent descriptions. Starting with the standard commutative gauge theory action and then re-interpreting any product of fields appearing in terms of the Moyal product is the first way. In the second approach, one re-interprets all the fields as operators in the Hilbert space which provides for a representation of the fundamental algebra that defines the underlying non-commutative geometry. In this note we follow the latter approach and we will closely follow the notation of Polychronakos .

Specializing to the 2+1 dimensional case, the non-commutative geometry with coordinates $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`t`$, and the corresponding derivative operators (which act via the adjoint action) $`_X`$, $`_Y`$ and $`_t`$ satisfy the algebra

$`[X,Y]=i\theta `$ (1)
$`[_X,_Y]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\theta }}`$ (2)
$`[_X,X]=[_Y,Y]=1`$ (3)
$`[_X,Y]=[_Y,X]=0`$ (4)
and $`t`$ and $`_t`$ commute with all of the above operators. We take $`\theta >0`$, the case $`\theta <0`$ is obtained via a parity reflection.

The algebra of the non-commutative geometry allows us to define annihilation and creation operators (note $`\theta >0`$)

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2\theta }}}(X+iY)`$ (5)
$`a^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2\theta }}}(XiY)`$ (6)
Clearly $`[a,a^{}]=1`$. The usual Fock space basis states $`|k>`$ are obtained via the action of the annihilation and creation operators: $`a|0>=0`$, $`a^{}|k>=\sqrt{k+1}|k+1>`$ and $`a|k>=\sqrt{k}|k1>`$.

## 2 Action and Equations of Motion and Comments

### 2.1 Action and Equations of motion

The action that will interest  us is written as

$$S=Tr\left(\frac{1}{4}[D_\mu ,D_\nu ][D^\mu ,D^\nu ]+\frac{i}{3}\lambda D^3+\frac{1}{2}[D_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }][D^\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]eV(\mathrm{\Phi })\right).$$
(7)
Here $`Tr=𝑑ttr`$, $`tr`$ is the trace over the associated Hilbert (Fock) space, $`\lambda `$ and $`e`$ are coupling constants, the operators $`D_\mu `$ are defined as

$$D_\mu =i_\mu +A_\mu $$
(8)
and $`D=dx^\mu D_\mu `$ is the covariant exterior derivative operator. The operators $`D_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are hermitean operators. We define the non-commutative magnetic field by

$$[D_X,D_Y]=iB.$$
(9)
These covariant derivatives transform as

$$D_\mu UD_\mu U^{}$$
(10)
under local gauge transformations $`U`$. $`U`$ is a unitary Hilbert space operator, hence an element of $`U(\mathrm{})`$ and in general a function of $`t`$. The equations of motion resulting from the action are

$$[D_\nu ,[D^\nu ,D_\mu ]]+[\mathrm{\Phi },[D_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]]=i\lambda ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }[D^\nu ,D^\lambda ],$$
(11)
$$[D_\mu ,[D^\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]]+eV^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=0.$$
(12)
### 2.2 Comments on Non-Commutative Yang-Mills Theories, the Coefficient of the Chern-Simons Term and Gauge Invariance

We wish to make three points. First, we have not concerned ourselves with the distinction made between $`U(1)`$ non-commutative gauge theory and that based on a non-abelian group, say $`U(N)`$, as was done for example in Polychronakos . The reason is that the $`U(1)`$ theory contains all possible non-abelian theories within it, in a very precise and exact way (See also ,,). The representation Hilbert space given in for example  for the non-abelian case is the tensor product of a finite dimensional vector space taken say for the $`U(N)`$ factor with the standard infinite dimensional Hilbert (Fock) space for the representation of the algebra of the non-commutative geometry. Thus a basis of this space, $`𝒜`$, is for example given by

$$𝒜=\{|a)|k>,a1\mathrm{}N,k0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}$$
(13)
and gauge transformations consist of unitary operators $`V`$ which act in this space. It is evident that a relabelling of these basis states can yield a basis which appears identical to the usual Fock basis without the $`N\times N`$ factor. For example if we define $``$ such that

$``$ $`=`$ $`\{|b>>,b=0,1,2,\mathrm{},`$ (14)
$``$ $`|b>>=|a)|k>,a=b\mathrm{mod}N,k={\displaystyle \frac{bb\mathrm{mod}N}{N}},\}`$ (15)
and the unitary transformations $`V`$ are simply unitary transformations on the Fock space relabelled as in the basis $``$. Hence the non-commutative $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory is completely contained inside the so-called non-commutative $`U(1)`$ gauge theory. Perhaps a better name for this gauge theory would be the $`U(\mathrm{})`$ gauge theory. We wish to make clear that there is still some utility to look at non-commutative Yang-Mills theories in the tensor product picture, indeed, we will use it later. Our point is simple, that the $`U(1)`$ theory actually contains all possible gauge groups inside it.

Secondly, the coefficient of the Chern-Simons term (as written in equation (7)) is imaginary for the action in Minkowski space, hence $`\lambda `$ is real. This yields a real action for hermitean operators $`D_\mu `$. Analytic continuation to Euclidean space results in the appearance of a relative $`i`$ between the Chern-Simons term, which is odd in temporal derivatives, and the rest of the Lagrangian which is even. The ensuing Euclidean operator equations of motion have no solution in terms of hermitean operators $`D_\mu `$. This fact is familiar in the usual commuting case, where Euclidean, instanton solutions for theories containing Chern-Simons terms exist only for complex fields, ie. complex monopoles  or complex vortex strings . Hence the hermitean solution by Polychronakos  for the Euclidean case is not valid for the usual Euclidean theory, however it is a solution of this somewhat different theory.

Our third, related point is that the Chern-Simons action is actually, at least formally, perfectly gauge invariant. Consequently the coefficient of the Chern-Simons term, for the Euclidean theory, need not even be imaginary, relative to the other terms in the action. Furthermore, the coefficient of the Chern-Simons term need not be quantized, as one must take in the case of a commutative non-abelian gauge theory . Hence one can actually entertain a Euclidean action and equations of motion where $`\lambda `$ is real, with the solution in terms of hermitean operators as given by Polychronakos . The analytic relationship of such a Euclidean theory and its solutions is not to the usual Minkowski theory with real Chern-Simons term, but one with imaginary coefficient $`\lambda `$. Obviously, such a theory has no counterpart in the usual, commutative theatre.

## 3 Solutions

### 3.1 Previously found solutions

It is useful to rewrite the equations of motion in terms of the operators

$$D=\frac{D_X+iD_Y}{\sqrt{2}},D^{}=\frac{D_XiD_Y}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(16)
which yields the equations

$$[D,[D^{},D_0]]+[D^{},[D,D_0]][\mathrm{\Phi },[D_0,\mathrm{\Phi }]]=2\lambda [D,D^{}]$$
(17)
$$[D_0,[D_0,D]]+[D,[D,D^{}]]+[\mathrm{\Phi },[D,\mathrm{\Phi }]]=2\lambda [D_0,D]$$
(18)
$$[D_0,[D_0,\mathrm{\Phi }]][D,[D^{},\mathrm{\Phi }]][D^{},[D,\mathrm{\Phi }]]+eV^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=0$$
(19)
It may be noted that whereas for $`\lambda =e=0`$, the field eqs. (17) to (19) are scale invariant, the scale invariance is lost in case $`e=0`$ but $`\lambda 0`$. In particular, for $`e=\lambda =0`$ the field eqs. are unchanged under $`(D,D_0,\mathrm{\Phi })\alpha (D,D_0,\mathrm{\Phi })`$. In fact, they are also invariant under $`(D,\mathrm{\Phi })\alpha (D,\mathrm{\Phi }),D_0\pm \alpha D_0`$.

The previously found flux tube solutions at $`\lambda =0=e`$ are obtained most efficiently via the solution generating technique of Harvey, Kraus and Larsen (HKL) , from the simple vacuum configuration

$$D_0=i_t,D=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\theta }}a,\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$
(20)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\varphi _0II`$, $`\varphi _0`$ a $`c`$-number and $`II`$ is the identity operator. Obviously the generalization, to the case $`e0`$ with a potential of the form, for example

$$eV(\mathrm{\Phi })=e(\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2)^2$$
(21)
still yields a solution. The flux tube solutions of Polychronakos and others are obtained, as enunciated by HKL  via the adjoint action with the operator

$$S=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|k+1><k|$$
(22)
which satisfies

$$SS^{}=\widehat{P}_0=II|0><0|$$
(23)
while

$$S^{}S=II.$$
(24)
Then

$`D_\mu `$ $``$ $`S^nD_\mu (S^{})^n`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $``$ $`S^n\mathrm{\Phi }(S^{})^n`$ (26)
yields a solution with a flux tube of $`n`$ units of magnetic flux.

A minor comment is in order concerning the HKL construction. It is not necessary that the states chosen to construct the operator $`S`$ be the usual states of the Fock basis, $`\{|k>,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$, created by the action of $`a^{}`$ on the vacuum. Indeed, any orthonormal basis $`\{|j>>=\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\alpha _{j,k}|k>\}`$ can be used to construct $`S`$. We will use this freedom later.

### 3.2 A new solution

We exhibit a new static solution, where the action of $`D_0`$ gives $`0`$, of the equations for $`\lambda =0`$ and for $`e=0`$. The choice above $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ renders the commutators

$$[D,\mathrm{\Phi }_0]=[D^{},\mathrm{\Phi }_0]=0.$$
(27)
From the structure of the equations (17) to (19) it is clear that this is a sufficient condition but not a necessary one. Another sufficient condition for $`e=0`$ is given by

$$[D,\mathrm{\Phi }]=([D^{},\mathrm{\Phi }])^{}=\alpha II$$
(28)
where $`\alpha `$ is an arbitrary $`c`$-number, since the equations of motion now only include commutators of these quantities with other operators. Hence we can take

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\theta }}}a`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (a+a^{})`$ (30)
which yields another, new solution that is not obtainable from the vacuum solution (20) by the solution generating method of HKL. Of course we could act with the HKL method on this new solution to get more solutions:

$`D=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\theta }}}S^na(S^{})^n`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\alpha S^n(a+a^{})(S^{})^n`$ (32)
For $`\lambda 0`$ we have not found the smooth, static extension of this solution, but for the previously found solutions we do have such extensions, to which we turn next.

### 3.3 Solutions with Chern-Simons term

It suffices to find the extension of the vacuum solution (20) to the case $`\lambda 0`$ because of the power of the method of HKL. The solution can be exhibited in two ways, via a reasonably general hypothesis for the coefficients in a Fock space basis for the operators in question or derived as a relatively uncomplicated ansatz which is shown to satisfy the equations of motion. We will show both forms for the solution as they are instructive. The solution was originally found using a non-static temporal gauge description. We note that as in the commutative case, the Chern-Simons term induces a non-zero electric field whenever there is magnetic flux present.

#### 3.3.1 Time dependent solutions

One way of obtaining the solution is to consider the temporal gauge, $`A_0=0`$, so that $`D_0=i_t`$, and to look for a time dependent solution. The equations of motion become:

$$\ddot{D}[D,[D,D^{}]]=2i\lambda \dot{D},$$
(33)
$$[D,\dot{D}^{}]+[D^{},\dot{D}]=2i\lambda [D,D^{}].$$
(34)
We take $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ so that it decouples from the equations. With the hypothesis

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`f(N)a`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f_n|n><n|a={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f_n\sqrt{n+1}|n><n+1|`$ (36)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}g_n|n><n+1|`$ (37)
we find

$$B=[D,D^{}]=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|g_n|^2\left(|n><n||n+1><n+1|\right),$$
(38)
$$[D,B]=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_n(|g_{n+1}|^22|g_n|^2+|g_{n1}|^2)(|n><n+1|,$$
(39)
with the definition $`g_1=0`$. Hence the field eqs. (33) and (34) give:

$$\ddot{g}_ng_n(|g_{n+1}|^22|g_n|^2+|g_{n1}|^2)=2i\lambda \dot{g}_n,$$
(40)
$$(g_n\dot{g}_n^{}\dot{g}_ng_n^{})+2i\lambda |g_n|^2=(g_{n1}\dot{g}_{n1}^{}\dot{g}_{n1}g_{n1}^{})+2i\lambda |g_{n1}|^2.$$
(41)
Defining

$$g_n=R_ne^{i\gamma _n}$$
(42)
the eq. (41) simplifies to

$$2iR_n^2(\dot{\gamma }_n+\lambda )2iR_{n1}^2(\dot{\gamma }_{n1}+\lambda )=0.$$
(43)
which implies

$$R_n^2(\dot{\gamma }_n+\lambda )=0$$
(44)
since $`R_1=0`$. If $`R_n0`$ we get

$$\dot{\gamma }_n=\lambda \mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}.\gamma _n=\lambda t+\gamma _n(0),$$
(45)
where $`\gamma _n(0)`$ allows for arbitrary constant phases for $`g_n`$, which we notationally suppress. Then the imaginary part of eq. (40) implies that $`R_n`$ is time independent and the real part yields

$$R_n\left(R_{n+1}^22R_n^2+R_{n1}^2\lambda ^2\right)=0.$$
(46)
This equation (with $`\lambda =0`$) has been analyzed with clarity by Polychronakos. On applying his derivation to our case of $`\lambda 0`$, we find that as in , it has solutions of the form $`R_1=R_0=\mathrm{}=R_{N1}=0`$ and the remaining $`R_n0,nN`$. We will take $`N=0`$ so that $`R_00`$, the higher solutions are obtained via the method of HKL. The recurrence relation is easily solved

$$R_n^2=\lambda ^2\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+(R_0^2)(n+1),$$
(47)
and $`R_0^2=\frac{2}{\theta }`$ by continuity with the solution at $`\lambda =0`$. This gives the solution, restoring the constant phases

$$g_n=e^{i(\lambda t+\gamma _n(0))}\sqrt{\lambda ^2\frac{n}{2}+\frac{2}{\theta }}\sqrt{n+1},$$
(48)
hence

$$D=e^{i\lambda t}e^{i\gamma (N)}\sqrt{\lambda ^2\frac{N}{2}+\frac{2}{\theta }}a,$$
(49)
and

$$B=[D,D^{}]=\lambda ^2N+\frac{2}{\theta }.$$
(50)
We can make an minor elaboration on the solutions in the sector with flux N for $`e=0`$. Here the first $`N`$ $`g_n`$’s are zero, ie. $`g_1=g_0=\mathrm{}=g_{n1}=0`$ and $`g_n0`$ for $`nN`$. For such a solution the possible configuration for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be slightly more complicated. Indeed the adjoint action of $`S^N`$ yields

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(II\widehat{P}_N)$$
(51)
where

$$\widehat{P}_N=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}|n><n|.$$
(52)
Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is proportional to the projection operator that projects on to the complement of the sub-space spanned by the first $`N`$ basis vectors. However, the gauge field is trivial in the sub-space spanned by the first $`N`$ basis vectors, hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can actually be an arbitrary operator in this subspace:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\widehat{P}_N\mathrm{\Phi }_N\widehat{P}_N+\mathrm{\Phi }_0(II\widehat{P}_N)$$
(53)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N`$ is an absolutely arbitrary operator .

#### 3.3.2 Static Gauge Ansatz

The other way of obtaining the solution is to consider static solutions. Further, we again take $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ so that it decouples from the field equations and we only need to solve field eqs. (17) and (18). We now now notice that the field eq. (17) is trivially satisfied if

$$[D_0,D]=\lambda D.$$
(54)
Further, eq. (18) now requires that

$$[D,[D,D^{}]][D,B]=\lambda ^2D.$$
(55)
We thus find that all solutions of the two eqs. (54) and (55) (with $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$) will automatically satisfy the field eqs. (17) to (19). So the question boils down to finding the different solutions to the two eqs. (54) and (55). Clearly, there could be several solutions to these two equations. One simplest possibility is that

$$[D,D^{}]=\lambda D_0,$$
(56)
so that in view of eq. (54), eq. (55) is automatically satisfied. The existence of such solutions has been mentioned by Polychronakos  where he pointed out that representations of $`SU(1,1)`$ provide for solutions of the equations of motion. An illustration is obtained from the above time-dependent solution, by transforming to the static gauge. If we choose

$$D_0=\lambda N=\lambda \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n|n><n|,$$
(57)
while $`D`$ is as given in the time-dependent case (suppressing constant phases), i.e.

$$D=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}R_n|n><n+1|,$$
(58)
then eq. (54) is trivially satisfied while eq. (55) is satisfied provided $`R_n`$ satisfies eq. (46). Thus, we find that the static solution is given by

$`D_0`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda N`$ (59)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\gamma (N)}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}N+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\theta }}}a`$ (60)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=\mathrm{\Phi }_0.`$ (61)
As expected, $`B[D,D^{}]`$ being a gauge invariant quantity, is as previously found in the time-dependent case and given by eq. (50). One might argue that $`B[D,D^{}]\lambda D_0`$. However, if one redefines $`D_0`$ by

$$D_0=\lambda N\frac{2}{\lambda \theta }II$$
(62)
we recover 56. However, it is possible that there could be solutions for which eq. (56) is not valid.

#### 3.3.3 More General Time-Dependent Solution

We can generalize the time-dependent solution given above by choosing a higher moment ansatz for $`D`$ as in

$$D=f(N)a^k=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g(n)|n><n+k|,$$
(63)
while still assuming $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. On exactly following the algebra as given in eqs. (38) to (45), one finds that instead of eq. (46), now $`R_n`$ satisfies the equation

$$R_n\left(R_{n+k}^22R_n^2+R_{nk}^2\lambda ^2\right)=0.$$
(64)
with $`R_1=R_2=\mathrm{}=0`$. This equation decouples into $`k`$ equations, each involving the coefficients $`R_{kn+q}`$ for single $`q=0,1,2,\mathrm{},k1`$. On assuming $`R_{0,1,\mathrm{},k1}`$ to be non-zero, the solution to the set of eqs. (64) is easily obtained

$$R_{nk+q}^2=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}\lambda ^2+(n+1)R_q^2,q=0,1,\mathrm{},k1.$$
(65)
This solution comes about because the equations are universal and here are applied in the sense of equations with the gauge group $`U(1)^k`$. It would be interesting to find solutions with the full $`U(k)`$ involved.

### 3.4  New Solution at $`e=0`$

We can show the existence of new solutions at both $`\lambda =0`$ and $`\lambda 0`$. So far as we are aware, these solutions, even at $`\lambda =0`$ were not known before. We start with the hypothesis

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}r_m|m><m|`$ (66)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}g_n|n><n+1|`$ (67)
Then

$`[D,\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}g_n(r_{n+1}r_n)|n><n+1|`$ (68)
$`[\mathrm{\Phi },[\mathrm{\Phi },D]]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}g_n(r_{n+1}r_n)^2|n><n+1|`$ (69)
$`[D^{},[D,\mathrm{\Phi }]]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|g_{n1}|^2(r_nr_{n1})|g_n|^2(r_{n+1}r_n)|n><n|.`$ (70)
As a result, the equations of motion (17) to (19) take the form

$$\ddot{g}_ng_n(|g_{n+1}|^22|g_n|^2+|g_{n1}|^2)g_n(r_{n+1}r_n)^2=2i\lambda \dot{g}_n,$$
(71)
$$(g_n\dot{g}_n^{}\dot{g}_ng_n^{})+2i\lambda |g_n|^2=(g_{n1}\dot{g}_{n1}^{}\dot{g}_{n1}g_{n1}^{})+2i\lambda |g_{n1}|^2,$$
(72)
$$\ddot{r}_n2(|g_{n1}|^2(r_nr_{n1})|g_n|^2(r_{n+1}r_n))=0.$$
(73)
A solution to eqs. (72) and (73) is obtained with the hypothesis $`\ddot{r}_n=0`$ and $`g_n=R_ne^{i\lambda t}`$ which yields

$$r_{n+1}r_n=\frac{c}{|g_n|^2},$$
(74)
where $`c`$ is an arbitrary constant. Consequently, eq. (71) takes the form

$$R_n\left(R_{n+1}^22R_n^2+R_{n1}^2\lambda ^2\frac{c^2}{R_n^4}\right)=0.$$
(75)
Consider the case $`R_1=0`$, $`R_00`$. Then we get the equation

$$R_{n+1}^2R_n^2(R_n^2R_{n1}^2)=\lambda ^2+\frac{c^2}{R_n^4}.$$
(76)
Summing twice, first for $`n=0\mathrm{}N`$ and then for $`N=0\mathrm{}M`$ yields the equation (analogous to an integral equation)

$$R_{M+1}^2=\lambda ^2\frac{(M+1)(M+2)}{2}+(M+2)(R_0^2)+c^2\underset{N=0}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{R_n^4}.$$
(77)
A self-consistent perturbative solution ensues for $`R_n^2`$ for small $`c^2`$. With $`R_0^2=\frac{2}{\theta }`$ we get $`R_n^2=\frac{\lambda ^2n(n+1)}{2}+\frac{2}{\theta }(n+1)`$ for $`c^2=0`$, which is the same solution as found previously. Then we can generate a perturbative expansion in $`c^2`$ by simply iterating the equation, for example to first order in $`c^2`$ we have

$$R_{M+1}^2=\lambda ^2\frac{(M+1)(M+2)}{2}+\frac{2}{\theta }(M+2)+c^2\underset{N=0}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{(\lambda ^2\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+\frac{2}{\theta }(n+1))^2}.$$
(78)
The latter sum is convergent and finite as $`M\mathrm{}`$ and there is no obstruction to iterating this process to generate a well defined perturbative expansion for $`R_n`$.

This solution can be immediately generalized to the case of $`U(1)^k`$. We keep the same ansatz for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ but for $`D`$ we assume

$$D=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g(n)|n><n+k|,$$
(79)
On following exactly the same steps as given above, a solution is obtained with the hypothesis $`\ddot{r}_n=0`$ and $`g_n=R_ne^{i\lambda t}`$ which now yields

$$r_{n+k}r_n=\frac{c}{|g_n|^2},$$
(80)
where $`c`$ is an arbitrary constant. Consequently, we now have

$$R_n\left(R_{n+k}^22R^2(n)+R_{nk}^2\lambda ^2\frac{c^2}{R_n^4}\right)=0.$$
(81)
We consider the case $`R_1=R_2=\mathrm{}=0`$, and $`R_{0,1,\mathrm{},k1}0`$. Then we get the equation

$$R_{n+k}^22R_n^2+R_{nk}^2=\lambda ^2+\frac{c^2}{R_n^4}.$$
(82)
This equation groups into $`k`$ uncoupled subsystems each involving the coefficients $`R_{kn+q}`$ for a single $`(q=0,1,2,\mathrm{},k1`$). We can solve each of these $`k`$ equations as above.

## 4 A Re-Formulation of the Non-Commutative Abelian Higgs Model

In closing we exhibit a re-formulation of the Abelian Higgs model, where usually the Higgs scalar is taken to be in the fundamental representation. This is complementary to the usual form taken for matter fields in non-commutative gauge theories where, typically the adjoint action is used when concerning the gauge transformation properties of the matter. It is easy to re-formulate matter in the fundamental representation in terms of real fields transforming under an adjoint action. This is quite familiar in the commutative case, indeed any complex representation can be re-formulated as a sub-group of a larger group acting on exclusively real fields via an adjoint action. It is somewhat more complicated in the non-commutative theatre, but everything does go through.

Up to now we have found flux tube solutions in the abelian ($`U(1)`$) non-commu-ta-tive gauge theory. These flux tubes do not resemble the usual, Nielsen-Olesen  vortex type solitons familiar in the commutative theatre. In the models considered so far, the Higgs field has essentially been a spectator, except for the one configuration where we could only obtain the solution implicitly in subsection (3.4). To recover the Nielsen-Olesen type configurations we have to consider the Higgs field in the fundamental representation. However, every fundamental representation corresponds to the adjoint action in an appropriate, higher dimensional representation acting on a real (hermitean) space. For example, the fundamental representation of $`SU(2)`$ exists inside $`SO(4)`$, the fundamental of $`SU(3)`$ exists inside $`SO(6)`$, etc. Indeed the fundamental representation of $`U(1)`$, ie. a complex field, can be written equivalently as two real fields transforming via an adjoint action in $`SO(2)`$.

Hence, consider the action, written exactly as before in eq. (7), with the same equations of motion as in (11) and (12). However, now the operators appearing in these equations are given by

$$D_\mu =i_\mu +\sigma _2A_\mu $$
(83)
while

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_1\sigma _1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2\sigma _3$$
(84)
where $`\sigma _i`$ are the usual Pauli matrices. Hence we are using the nomenclature of two real fields, in two non-commutative dimensional $`SO(2)`$ Yang Mills theory. The $`U(1)`$ is explicitly extracted out of the $`U(\mathrm{})`$ gauge symmetry of the usual non-commutative $`U(1)`$ gauge theory. Thus, although we find the notation redundant, it is still useful, as the equations of motion appear exactly as before. For $`\lambda =0`$ the vacuum solution is

$$D_0=0,D=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\theta }}a,\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\sigma _1$$
(85)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ appearing in the potential is interpreted as before although now $`II=II_{2\times 2}II_{\mathrm{Fock}\mathrm{space}}`$.

The vortex solution of Bak  can be obtained by the method of HKL with an appropriate choice for $`S`$. This choice can be found by comparing with Bak. Here

$$\varphi =\varphi _1+i\varphi _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N+1}}a^{}$$
(86)
hence

$`\varphi _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N+1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N+1}}}a^{}\right)`$ (87)
$`\varphi _2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}\left(a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N+1}}}a^{}\right)`$ (88)
This expression for the field $`\varphi `$ in Bak  is exactly the definition of the operator $`S`$ of HKL

$$\varphi =\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|n+1><n|S,$$
(89)
hence

$$\varphi \varphi ^{}=SS^{}=II_{\mathrm{Fock}\mathrm{space}}|0><0|$$
(90)
which is a projection operator. The construct $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi _1\sigma _1+\varphi _2\sigma _3`$ remarkably shares this property,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1^2+\varphi _2^2+i\sigma _2[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]`$ (91)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{S+S^{}}{2}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{SS^{}}{2i}}\right)^2+i\sigma _2[\left({\displaystyle \frac{S+S^{}}{2}}\right),\left({\displaystyle \frac{SS^{}}{2i}}\right)]`$ (92)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(S^{}S+SS^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _2(S^{}SSS^{})`$ (93)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2II|0><0|\sigma _2|0><0|)=II\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\sigma _2}{2}}\right)|0><0|`$ (94)
which is evidently a projection operator. We need to find the operator $`𝒮`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\left(\left(\frac{S+S^{}}{2}\right)\sigma _1+\left(\frac{SS^{}}{2i}\right)\sigma _3\right)=𝒮\mathrm{\Phi }_0\sigma _1𝒮^{}.$$
(95)
It is not difficult to see that the solution for $`𝒮`$ is given by

$$𝒮=\sigma _++\sigma _{}S$$
(96)
where we choose to represent $`\sigma _\pm =\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _1\pm i\sigma _3)`$. Then we find

$`𝒮𝒮^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _+\sigma _{}+\sigma _{}\sigma _+SS^{}=\sigma _+\sigma _{}+\sigma _{}\sigma _+(II_{\mathrm{Fock}\mathrm{space}}|0><0|)`$ (97)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\sigma _2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\sigma _2}{2}}(II_{\mathrm{Fock}\mathrm{space}}|0><0|)`$ (98)
$`=`$ $`II+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\sigma _2}{2}}|0><0|II𝒫`$ (99)
$`𝒮^{}𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`II`$ (100)
where $`𝒫`$ is the appropriate projection operator, and

$`𝒮\mathrm{\Phi }_0\sigma _1𝒮^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\sigma _{}\sigma _1\sigma _{}S+\sigma _+\sigma _1\sigma _+S^{})`$ (101)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\sigma _2}{2}}\right)\sigma _1S+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\sigma _2}{2}}\right)\sigma _1S^{}\right)`$ (102)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{S+S^{}}{2}}\right)\sigma _1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{SS^{}}{2i}}\right)\sigma _3\right)`$ (103)
## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have found the extensions of the flux tube type solitons in non-commutative Maxwell Higgs theories to the situtation where a Chern-Simons term is added, among other results. There are compelling reasons to consider such an extension. Indeed, non-commutative geometry violates parity at a fundamental level, the commutation relations between $`X`$ and $`Y`$ break parity. The resulting effective magnetic field also breaks parity. There is no reason to expect that the governing action should preserve it, and hence it is natural to consider the inclusion of the Chern-Simons term.

In addition, the non-commutative Chern-Simons theory is proposed to describe the fractional quantum Hall effect  (see also ). The non-commutative pure Chern-Simons gauge theory is studied as a limiting low energy effective theory. A solution of the equations of motion was shown to describe the fractional quantum Hall fluid quasi-particles. The solution is conveniently expressed as

$`y_1iy_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}}a`$ (104)
$`x_1ix_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}}b`$ (105)
where $`b`$ is the operator defined by

$`b^{}|n>`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{n+1+\nu }|n+1>`$ (106)
$`b|n>`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{n+\nu }|n1>`$ (107)
$`b|0>`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (108)
where $`x_i`$ are the coordinates of the fluid particles (Eulerian coordinates) while the $`y_i`$ are the co-moving coordinates of the fluid particles (Lagrangian coordinates) (see  for details) in the continuum limit and $`\nu `$ is the filling factor.

Our solution in the limit of large parameter $`\lambda `$ becomes

$$D_0=\lambda N,D=\lambda \sqrt{\frac{N}{2}}a,\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$
(109)
which does not seem to reduce to the solution of Susskind . It would be interesting to see the import of our solutions, especially with flux-tubes for the quantum Hall system. For example, the solution obtained from the above solution by conjugating with $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ is

$$D_0=\lambda (NII+|0><0|),D=\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\frac{N(N1)}{N+1}}a,\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(II|0><0|).$$
(110)
The energy of this configuration is given by

$$E=tr\left(\frac{1}{2}(B^2+[D^{},D_0][D_0,D])+eV(\mathrm{\Phi })\right).$$
(111)
Normalizing so that the energy of the vacuum configuration, equation (109), is zero, we find that only the inhomogeneous potential contributes, taking for example $`eV(\mathrm{\Phi })=e(\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2)^2`$ gives

$$E=tr(e\mathrm{\Phi }_0^4|0><0|)=e\varphi _0^4.$$
(112)
###### Acknowledgments.

We thank the the organizers of Strings 2001, Mumbai, where this paper germinated, for a superbly run, first class conference and for their seductive proselytization of ordinary field theorists to string theory. M.P. thanks the Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, for kind hospitality, where essentially all of this work was done. We thank A. P. Polychronakos for useful correspondence. We also thank NSERC of Canada for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Extra Families, Higgs Spectrum and Oblique Corrections

## I Introduction

The number of fermion generations is one of the unresolved puzzles within the Standard Model (SM) of electroweak and strong interactions. However, certain extensions of the standard model suggest particular family structures.

$`N=2`$ supersymmetry constructions , for instance, enforce an even number of generations, which in practice implies three additional mirror families of chiral fermions (and sfermions) with fermion masses at the weak scale, $`M_fH`$, where $`H174`$ GeV is the Higgs vacuum expectation value (VEV) responsible for the electroweak symmetry breaking. All fermion masses in $`N=2`$ supersymmetry originate at low-energy from effective Yukawa couplings, as shown in Ref. , and are chiral. (Although the matter fermions are vector-like in the $`N=2`$ limit, gauge invariant mass terms are forbidden by a $`Z_2`$ mirror parity .) The mirror fermion spectrum is bounded from above by requiring perturbativity, and from below by direct collider searches. Hence, the natural mass range for the mirror fermions is roughly,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z}{2}}M_f𝒪(H),`$ (1)
where $`m_Z91.19`$ GeV is the mass of the weak gauge boson $`Z^0`$. Here, the generic lower bound is given by the LEP $`Z`$-decays to heavy neutrinos and other charged fermions. The current direct bound on charged heavy leptons is about $`100`$ GeV, while extra SM-like quarks $`(t^{},b^{})`$ should be heavier than $`100200`$ GeV, depending on detailed assumptions regarding their mixing with $`(t,b)`$ and their decay modes of $`t^{}b+W`$ and $`b^{}b+Z`$, etc . For simplicity, we assume hereafter no mixing of the extra fermions among themselves and with the SM fermions (as the latter is suppressed by the mirror parity in $`N=2`$), and in particular, that the mass range (1) would apply.

Eq. (1) provides a restrictive range which is quite different from the case of dynamical symmetry breaking scenarios, such as technicolor, where the strongly interacting techni-fermions are generally heavy, with masses around or above the TeV scale . The quantum oblique corrections, parameterized in terms of the $`S`$, $`T`$ and $`U`$ parameters , are extracted from the electroweak precision data  and are known to exclude such extra heavy chiral-fermion generations . For instance, one extra SM-like heavy family would contribute to the $`S`$-parameter by an amount of

$`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_{cj}[I_{3L}(j)I_{3R}(j)]^2={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\pi }}0.21,`$ (2)
in the degenerate limit , where $`I_{3L,R}(j)`$ is the third component of weak-isospin of the left (right) handed fermion $`j`$, and $`N_{cj}=3(1)`$ denotes the color number of quarks (leptons). On the other hand, a nondegenerate heavy fermion doublet $`(\psi _1,\psi _2)`$ with masses $`(M_1,M_2)`$ can yield a sizable positive $`T`$ which, in the limit $`|M_1M_2|M_{1,2}`$, reads

$`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{cj}}{12\pi s_W^2c_W^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2}{m_Z}}\right)^2,`$ (3)
where $`s_W=\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$ with $`\theta _W`$ being the weak angle. Such nondecoupling effects of heavy chiral fermions are due to the dependence of their masses on the Yukawa couplings, that necessarily violates the decoupling theorem . The heavy (chiral) fermion corrections (2) and (3) are inconsistent with electroweak data (when considered separately), and are often the basis for ruling out such heavy fermion scenarios . (This is contrary to the case of vector-like fermions whose contributions to all oblique parameters decouple as $`1/M^2`$ and which play a crucial role, for instance, in the recent top-quark seesaw models with either vector singlet  or doublet  heavy fermions.)

One expects models with relatively light extra chiral fermions to also receive non-trivial constraints from the electroweak quantum corrections, though the nature of the constraints may be very different. In this work, we study the oblique corrections from the such relatively light new fermions \[cf. eq. (1)\], as well as from the Higgs sector which generates the chiral fermion masses. Since the extra fermions under consideration are relatively light, they can have a sizable mass-splitting, such as $`|M_1M_2|m_Z\ll ̸M_{1,2}`$, without causing an unacceptably large $`T`$. At the same time, the $`S`$-parameter may receive additional negative corrections. Interestingly, a single relatively heavy SM Higgs boson leads to a sizable negative contribution to $`T`$, and thus allows for a larger isospin breaking in the fermion sector. For one extra fermion family with a proper spectrum, a SM Higgs boson as heavy as 500 GeV is found to be consistent with the precision electroweak data. Such an interplay is nontrivial, and as we will show, in order to accommodate up to three new families, an extended Higgs sector with two Higgs doublets (and with a highly constrained spectrum) has to be considered.

We begin, in Sec. II, with a summary of the definitions of the oblique parameters $`(S,T,U)`$ and their current experimental bounds, and examine in detail the contributions in the extra lepton-quark sector and the two-Higgs-doublet sector. We study the interplay between the fermion and Higgs sectors in Sec. III, where $`(S,T,U)`$ bounds are imposed for deriving the allowed parameter space. This is done first in the simplest case with a single extra fermion family and the one Higgs doublet, and then in the case with three extra fermion families and the two Higgs doublets. Low energy $`N=2`$ supersymmetry, which provides an explicit theoretical framework in the latter case, is briefly reviewed as well. We conclude in Sec. IV. The Appendix summarizes the complete formulae for the two-Higgs-doublet contributions to $`(S,T,U)`$.

## II New Physics Corrections to Oblique Parameters

### A The Oblique Parameters and Current Bounds

The oblique $`(S,T,U)`$ parameters  can be defined as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{3Y}(m_Z^2)\mathrm{\Pi }_{3Y}(0)}{m_Z^2}},`$ (4)
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0)\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}(0)}{s_W^2c_W^2m_Z^2}},`$ (5)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi {\displaystyle \frac{[\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(m_Z^2)\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0)][\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}(m_Z^2)\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}(0)]}{m_Z^2}},`$ (6)
where the weak-mixing angle $`\theta _W`$ is defined at the scale $`\mu =m_Z`$. In eqs. (4)-(6), $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}`$ are the vacuum polarizations of isospin currents, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3Y}`$ the vacuum polarization of one isospin and one hypercharge currents. The above definitions*** The $`(S,T,U)`$ definitions used in Ref.  are equivalent to the above eqs. (4)-(6) though the former are defined in term of the gauge boson mass eigenstates instead of the weak eigenstates. slightly differ from the original ones  for $`(S,U)`$ since we use the differences of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-functions rather than their first derivatives (with higher powers of $`q^2=m_Z^2`$ truncated). Eqs. (4)-(6) are more appropriate for our current analysis in which the scale of the relevant new fermions is relatively low. The new physics corrections to $`(S,T,U)`$ are defined relative to their SM reference point and are often denoted by $`(S_{\mathrm{new}},T_{\mathrm{new}},U_{\mathrm{new}})`$. To simplify the notation, we will omit these subscripts hereafter.

In certain cases, three additional oblique parameters $`(V,W,X)`$, which are generally less visible, may be further included in fitting the data. This more elaborated procedure is beyond the scope of the current work and is not expected to affect our main conclusions. \[The contributions of the new fermions to $`(V,W,X)`$ drop quickly as their masses increase beyond the $`Z`$-pole and become well below the dominant oblique corections .\] Also, the absence of mixings between new fermions and the SM fermions implies no extra flavor-dependent vertex corrections to the fermionic $`Z`$-decay width, which makes the oblique corrections sufficient for describing the new physics in our case.

The updated global fit of $`(S,T,U)`$ to the various precisely measured electroweak observables (such as the gauge boson masses $`(m_Z,m_W)`$, the $`Z`$-width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$, and the $`Z`$-pole asymmetries, etc)  gives Our global fit analysis is based on the GAPP package in Ref. , including the data update reported in Ref. . The newest update in Ref.  has no significant effect on our fit and thus does not affect our conclusions. :

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`0.04\pm 0.11(0.09),`$ (7)
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`0.03\pm 0.13(+0.09),`$ (8)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.18}\pm 0.14(+0.01),`$ (9)
where the central values correspond to the SM Higgs mass reference point, $`m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}=100`$ GeV, while the values given in the parentheses show the changes for $`m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}=300`$ GeV. The uncertainties in (8) are from the inputs. The $`S`$ and $`T`$ parameters are strongly correlated as shown in the $`95\%`$ C.L. contours of Fig. 1. Variations in $`U`$ mainly shift the $`ST`$ contour without affecting its shape and direction, and a larger positive $`U`$ tends to diminish the allowed regions of positive $`(S,T)`$.

The “$`\times `$” symbols in Fig. 1 represent in SM Higgs contributions to $`S`$ and $`T`$ for different $`m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}`$ values relative to $`m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}=100`$ GeV. $`U`$ is insensitive to $`m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}`$ for $`m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}200`$ GeV. An important feature of the SM Higgs corrections is that as $`m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}`$ increases, $`S`$ becomes more positive while $`T`$ is driven to more negative values. As such, a SM Higgs with a mass $`m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}300`$ GeV is clearly outside the $`95\%`$ C.L. $`ST`$ contours for wide range of $`U`$ values. The best fit for a pure SM Higgs boson with $`(S,T,U)=0`$ gives a similar but somewhat stronger bound, $`34\mathrm{GeV}m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}202`$ GeV, at 95$`\%`$ C.L. However, including certain types of new physics contributions to $`(S,T,U)`$ may drastically relax the upper bound on the Higgs mass, as long as the new corrections either (i) decrease $`S`$, or (ii) lift up $`T`$, or (iii) achieve both. As we will show in the following sections, the extra fermions under consideration generally lead to a large positive $`T`$, and in many cases also to a sizable $`S>0`$. Hence, our analysis will mainly fall under Case (ii).

### B Lepton and Quark Sector

For generality, we consider two fermions $`(\psi _1,\psi _2)`$, with masses $`(M_1,M_2)`$ and the following SM charges,

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{Fermions}:\hfill & \psi _L=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{1L}\\ \psi _{2L}\end{array}\right),& \psi _{1R},& \psi _{2R};\\ \mathrm{Hypercharge}:\hfill & Y,& Y+\frac{1}{2},& Y\frac{1}{2};\end{array}$$
(10)
where the electric charge is given by $`Q_j=I_{3j}+Y_j`$ with $`I_{3j}`$ and $`Y_j`$ being the third component of weak-isospin and the hypercharge of the fermion $`j`$, respectively. For SM fermions, one has $`Y=\frac{1}{6}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ in eq. (10) for quarks (leptons). For mirror fermions in the Minimal $`N=2`$ Supersymmetric SM (MN2SSM) , one has $`Y=\frac{1}{6}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ in eq. (10) for mirror quarks (mirror leptons). (For a review on the MN2SSM, see Sec. III B.) Hence, the correspondence with eq. (10) is, $`(M_1,M_2)(M_\nu ,M_{\mathrm{}})`$ for leptons and $`(M_1,M_2)(M_{\mathrm{}^{}},M_\nu ^{})`$ for mirror leptons, and similarly for the quarks and mirror quarks.

Using eqs. (4)-(6), we can compute the one-loop fermionic contributions to the oblique $`(S,T,U)`$ parameters as below,

$`S_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{6\pi }}\{2(4Y+3)x_1+2(4Y+3)x_22Y\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x_2}}`$ (12)
$`+[({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+2Y)x_1+Y]G(x_1)+[({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}2Y)x_2Y]G(x_2)\},`$
$`T_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{8\pi s_W^2c_W^2}}F(x_1,x_2),`$ (13)
$`U_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{x_1+x_2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(x_1x_2)^2}{3}}+[{\displaystyle \frac{(x_1x_2)^3}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1^2+x_2^2}{x_1x_2}}]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x_2}}`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x_11}{6}}f(x_1,x_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{x_21}{6}}f(x_2,x_2)+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1+x_2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{(x_1x_2)^2}{6}}]f(x_1,x_2)\},`$
where $`x_i=(M_i/m_Z)^2`$ with $`i=1,2`$ and the color factor $`N_c=3(1)`$ for quarks (leptons). The functions $`G(x)`$, $`F(x_1,x_2)`$, and $`f(x_1,x_2)`$ are defined by eqs. (A21), (A20) and (A25), in the Appendix. We observe that for a given $`(M_1,M_2)`$, eq. (12) is invariant under the exchanges of $`YY`$ and $`M_1M_2`$, so that the fermions $`(\psi _1,\psi _2)`$ and their mirrors $`(\psi _2,\psi _1)`$ have the same expression for $`S`$. Therefore, we will not distinguish hereafter between a fermion and its mirror, but simply use $`(M_1,M_2)`$ to denote $`(M_N,M_E)`$ in the (mirror) lepton sector and $`(M_U,M_D)`$ in the (mirror) quark sector.

It is instructive to consider the limit $`M_{1,2}^2m_Z^2`$, under which the $`S`$ parameter approximately reads,

$$S_f=\frac{N_c}{6\pi }[12Y\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_1}{M_2}\right)^2+\frac{1+8Y}{20}\left(\frac{m_Z}{M_1}\right)^2+\frac{18Y}{20}\left(\frac{m_Z}{M_2}\right)^2+O\left(\frac{m_Z^4}{M_i^4}\right)].$$
(16)
If the mass splitting $`|M_1M_2|/M_{1,2}`$ is small, then all mass-dependent terms decouple and eq. (16) reduces to the positive constant term $`N_c/6\pi `$, which leads to the well-known result in eq. (2). However, as long as $`(M_1,M_2)`$ are non-degenerate and not too large, additional negative corrections to the constant term $`N_c/6\pi `$ may arise, depending on the sign of hypercharge $`Y`$.

The contributions to $`S`$ from one generation of either ordinary or mirror leptons and quarks are shown in Fig. 2(a), where the solid curves are for leptons and dotted curves for quarks. The mass range of the chiral fermions are chosen to be between 50 GeV and 300 GeV. (We note that after adding experimental bounds on the charged extra fermions, the lower end of their mass range would be shifted somewhat above $`50`$ GeV, depending on the details of each particular model.) The lepton contribution to $`S`$ grows with an increasing $`M_1`$ ($`M_N`$) and with a decreasing $`M_2`$ ($`M_E`$), while the quark contribution behaves in the opposite way. This is due to their different signs of $`Y`$. The quark contribution is enhanced by the color factor, but is suppressed by the smaller Y. For $`M_{1,2}^2m_Z^2,(M_1M_2)^2`$, $`S`$ should approach its asymptotic value $`1/6\pi `$ for leptons and $`1/2\pi `$ for quarks. This may be understood from Fig. 2(a) by examining the solid (dotted) curve with $`M_2=300`$ GeV which already well approaches $`0.05(0.16)`$ for leptons (quarks) as $`M_1`$ increases to about $`300`$ GeV. However, for quarks and leptons with masses $`𝒪(m_Z)`$, smaller and even negative values of $`S`$ can be obtained. Negative values of $`S`$ occur in the non-degenerate region of $`M_E>M_N`$ and $`M_U>M_D`$. For instance, $`(M_N,M_E)=(50,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}300})`$ GeV gives $`S_{\mathrm{}}=0.18`$.

The contributions to $`T`$ and $`U`$ from chiral fermions are depicted in Fig. 2(b) and (c). The parameters $`T`$ and $`U`$ measure the weak-isospin violation in the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_L`$ doublet and thus are nonvanishing only for $`M_1M_2`$. The more $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ split, the larger their contributions to $`(T_f,U_f)`$ become. Furthermore, the $`(T_f,U_f)`$ formulae eqs. (13) and (15) are invariant under the exchange $`M_1M_2`$ and are always positive, unlike the contributions of the Higgs boson (cf., Fig. 1). While $`U_f`$ is relatively small, $`T_{\mathrm{}}`$, for example, could be as large as 0.68 for $`(M_N,M_E)=(100,300)`$ GeV. Since $`(T_f,U_f)`$ depend only on isospin-breaking and are symmetric under $`M_1M_2`$, their $`M_{1,2}`$-dependence is the same for fermions and mirror fermions. The quark contributions to $`(T_f,U_f)`$ are again enhanced by their color factor.

In order to accommodate new fermion families, the up- and down-type (mirror) quarks have to be sufficiently degenerate to avoid a too large positive $`T`$. Unfortunately, this renders $`S`$ positive in most of the parameter space. A non-degenerate pair of (mirror) leptons could help to satisfy the $`S`$ constraint, but it also contributes positively to $`T`$ (though more moderately comparing to quark). A positive contribution to $`U`$ can better fit the data, but it is numerically less significant, as shown in Fig. 2(c). Clearly, the nontrivial correlations among lepton and quark contributions to all three oblique parameters (rather than to any particular one) provide the most significant constraints.

In order to compare the theoretical predictions with the current experimental constraints shown in Fig. 1, it is very instructive to depict the above fermionic oblique corrections eqs. (12)-(15) in the $`ST`$ plane for given values of $`U`$. This corresponds to a set of “$`U`$-contours” in the theoretically allowed regions of the $`ST`$ plane, which should be directly compared to the experimental bounds of Fig. 1. In Figs. 3 and 4, we plot various $`U`$-contours in the $`ST`$ plane for one family of leptons and of quarks, respectively. For leptons, $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be negative in large regions of the parameter space. For quarks, $`S_q>0`$ in most of the parameter space as to avoid a too large contribution to $`T_q`$. Although a positive $`U_f`$ is consistent with the data, $`T_f`$ provides a very strong constraint when combined with $`S_f`$. Nevertheless, comparing with the $`ST`$ fits in Fig. 1, one finds that one extra chiral family is viable, even without additional new physics contributions. This is consistent with the recent study in Ref. , where a similar conclusion was reached. Ref.  used an unconventional formalism for analyzing the oblique corrections and a detailed comparison is difficult. Our analysis, based on the standard $`(S,T,U)`$ formalism , is transparent and can be readily applied to a given model. In what follows, we focus on the interplay between extra families and the Higgs sector. We aim at accommodating up to three chiral families (as theoretically motivated by our recent $`N=2`$ constructions ), which requires to extend the Higgs sector with two-doublets. Henceforth, our study substantially differs from Ref. .

Finally, we note that it should be straightforward to translate above Figs. 3 and 4 to any number $`N_g`$ of extra generations, i.e., for $`N_g>1`$, the same curves represent the oblique parameters with the values $`(S,T,U)/N_g`$, if one assumes that these new generations are degenerate in mass with each other. However, it is extremely difficult to accommodate more than one extra generation with the data. We will return to this issue in Sec. III.

### C Two Higgs Doublet sector

The exact corrections to $`(S,T,U)`$ in a general two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM) have been computed in Ref. . We will denote these contributions by $`S_H`$, $`T_H`$, and $`U_H`$, respectively. Their explicit formulae are lengthy and are summarized in the Appendix for completeness. For $`N=1`$ supersymmetry, and in particular the $`N=1`$ minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM (MSSM) (with high-scale supersymmetry breaking), the Higgs contributions are generally small due to the tree-level constraints among the masses of the light and heavy CP-even, the CP-odd, and the charged Higgs bosons, ($`m_h,m_H,m_A,m_{H^\pm }`$, respectively). However, for a two-Higgs-doublet sector with a general Higgs mass spectrum, significant contributions can arise in large regions of the parameter space. Such non-MSSM-like Higgs spectrum may be realized for a $`N=1`$ or $`N=2`$ supersymmetry scenario with a sufficiently low scale of supersymmetry breaking .

The contribution $`T_H`$ could be either positive or negative, depending on the spectrum of the Higgs masses and on the difference between the two rotation angles ($`\beta \alpha `$), where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =H_2/H_1`$ \[with $`H_1`$ ($`H_2`$) being the Higgs doublet of negative (positive) hypercharge\] and $`\alpha `$ is the rotation angle for obtaining the CP-even mass-eigenstates $`(h^0,H^0)`$. The $`T`$-contours in the $`(m_h,m_H)`$ plane for $`m_A=1000`$ GeV and $`m_A=100`$ GeV are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 for $`\beta \alpha =\pi `$ (solid line), $`\frac{3\pi }{4}`$ (dash-dotted line) and $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ (dotted line), where $`m_{H^\pm }`$ is chosen as to minimize $`T_H`$.

A negative contribution to $`T_H`$ can always be achieved with an appropriately chosen $`m_{H^\pm }`$. (This was also noted in Ref. .) For some values of $`m_{H^\pm }`$, $`T_H`$ could be positive and large, however, we will concentrate hereafter only on the more interesting regions with negative $`T_H`$.

The regions which correspond to a sizable negative $`T_H`$ can be classified as follows:

* Large $`m_A`$: (Ia) $`m_hm_{H^\pm }m_A`$$`\beta \alpha \pi `$ ;
(Ib) $`m_hm_Hm_{H^\pm }m_A`$ ;
* Small $`m_A`$: (IIa) $`m_Am_{H^\pm }m_H`$$`\beta \alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}`$ ;
(IIb) $`m_Am_{H^\pm }m_hm_H`$ ;

where the minimum value for $`T_H`$ is achieved for $`m_{H^\pm }0.6m_{\mathrm{heavy}}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{heavy}}=\mathrm{max}(m_H,m_A)`$. This can be understood by examining the approximate formula for $`T_H`$ in the limit $`m_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^2m_{Z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ :

$`T_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi s_W^2m_W^2}}\{\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )[F(m_{H^\pm }^2,m_h^2)+F(m_{H^\pm }^2,m_A^2,)F(m_A^2,m_h^2,)]`$ (18)
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )[F(m_{H^\pm }^2,m_H^2)+F(m_{H^\pm }^2,m_A^2)F(m_A^2,m_H^2)]\},`$
where $`F(x_1,x_2)`$ is defined in eq. (A20). \[The approximate formulae for ($`S_H,U_H`$) are given in the Appendix for completeness.\] Terms inside the first (second) bracket are symmetric in $`m_{h(H)}`$ and $`m_A`$, and could obtain large negative values if there is a large split between $`m_{h(H)}`$ and $`m_A`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{light}}m_{H^\pm }m_{\mathrm{heavy}}`$. For $`\beta \alpha =\pi [\frac{\pi }{2}]`$, we have $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha \beta )=0[\mathrm{cos}^2(\alpha \beta )=0]`$, so that only the first (second) bracket contributes, which is independent of $`m_H`$ ($`m_h`$). This is the case in region (Ia) and (IIa). For general values of $`\beta \alpha `$, $`m_h`$ and $`m_H`$ have to be sufficiently close in order for $`T_H`$ to be large and negative. This is the case in regions (Ib) and (IIb). We also notice that in Figs. 5 and 6, each set of $`T_H`$-contours approach the same point at the boundary of $`m_h=m_H`$. This is because the dependence on $`\beta \alpha `$ disappears under this limit \[see eqs. (A6) and (18)\].

We note that the parameter $`T_H`$ can be as negative as $`2.5`$, and could cancel large positive contributions from the quark and lepton sector when more than one extra family is included. $`S_H`$ and $`U_H`$ are relatively small in these two regions, where one has an almost positive $`S_H<0.1`$ and a negative $`U_H`$ with $`|U_H|<0.02`$. In Case-(Ia), a sizable positive $`S_H0.16`$ and a slightly negative $`U_H0.05`$ are also possible.

Clearly, the Higgs spectrum in these two regions is very different from that of the conventional $`N=1`$ MSSM. Even in the case of a more general supersymmetry breaking scenario , it requires some fine-tuning of the mass parameters and the quartic couplings. In principle, such relations are easier to realize in models with more than two Higgs doublets (such as $`N=2`$ supersymmetry), where more Higgs states can exist at the scale $`m_{\mathrm{heavy}}`$ or above and thus considerably expand the parameter space.

The correlations between the spectra of the minimal one- or two-Higgs-doublet sector and the additional chiral families via the precision $`(S,T,U)`$ constraints will be systematically analyzed in the next section.

### D Other Super and Mirror Particles

The contributions of the $`N=1`$ sparticles, with a typical mass scale $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, to the oblique parameters are generally small in the decoupling region $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}m_Z,m_t`$, which we will assume in our analysis for simplicity. In practice, this only requires $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}300`$ GeV, as shown in Refs. . Aside from sfermions and mirror sfermions, there could also be visible contributions from Majorana fermions, such as gauginos, Higgsinos, and, in $`N=2`$, mirror gauginos and Higgsinos. In general, contributions from Majorana fermions to $`S`$ could have either sign .

In our current study we concentrate on the contributions of the Higgs bosons and of (mirror) quarks and leptons. For simplicity, the effects from sfermions and Majorana fermions are assumed to be negligible. This is indeed the case in the decoupling regime $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}m_Z,m_t`$ under consideration. Clearly, an arbitrary spectrum of sparticles and/or mirror gauginos will add more degrees of freedom to fit the data and thus further relax the correlations derived in the next section. A more elaborate analysis including these complications is left for future work.

## III Spectra of Extra Fermions and Higgs Bosons:
The Interplay

### A Interplay of Extra Fermions and One-Higgs-Doublet Sector

We begin by considering the simplest case with one extra (mirror) family and one (SM) Higgs doublet. We display in Fig. 7 (a) and (b), the $`M_1M_2`$ plane, where each point represents an experimentally viable four-generation model, and dots and circles represent leptons and quarks, respectively. The initial sample consists of 10000 models. We choose, for illustration, a light SM Higgs with mass $`m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}=100`$ GeV \[cf., Fig. 7(a)\] and a heavy SM Higgs with mass $`m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}=500`$ GeV \[cf., Fig. 7(b)\]. Large regions of the parameter space are allowed, where the preferred regions are given by $`M_2>M_1`$ for leptons and $`M_1>M_2`$ for quarks. For a heavy Higgs boson $`m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}=500`$ GeV, the leptons and quarks occupy different mass regions, while in the case of a very light Higgs boson they largely overlap. Future discoveries of light extra lepton/quark spectra can provide important information about the Higgs boson mass range, and vice versa. Figs. 7(c) and (d) display the corresponding points in the $`ST`$ plane with the $`95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.`$ experimental bounds superimposed for $`m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}=100`$ GeV and 500 GeV, respectively. From Fig. 7(d), we see that for one extra chiral family, a heavy SM Higgs with $`m_H^{\mathrm{sm}}=500`$ GeV can be accommodated via the scenario of large fermionic $`T_f>0`$.

We note in passing that, after the completion of this work, Ref.  analyzed the limits on a heavy SM Higgs boson in the case of TeV-scale heavy technifermions which generate a large positive contribution to $`T`$. Our study has solely focused on relatively light extra chiral families with masses significantly below $`𝒪(\mathrm{TeV})`$, as motivated by $`N=2`$ supersymmetry constructions . The relaxation of the Higgs mass limits derived from precision electroweak data could be significant in either case.

### B Minimal $`N=2`$ Supersymmetric SM and Mirror Families

Before proceeding to discuss the case with three extra chiral families and the two-Higgs-doublets, a review of the theoretical framework which motivates this scenario is in place. As mentioned earlier, this spectrum arises in constructions of low-energy $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. Low-energy realizations of $`N=2`$ supersymmetry and its related phenomenology were recently investigated in Ref. . In the minimal $`N=2`$ supersymmetric SM, for each of the ordinary quark (lepton) and its squark (slepton) superpartner of the $`N=1`$ extension, there is also a conjugate mirror quark (mirror lepton) and its mirror squark (mirror slepton) superpartner. For each gauge boson and gaugino, there is also a mirror gauge boson and a mirror gaugino. The Higgs and Higgsino are also accompanied by their mirrors. In particular, three additional mirror generations of chiral fermions are predicted in the MN2SSM.

The mirror quarks and leptons do not obtain gauge-invariant vectorial mass terms (which would mix the mirror and ordinary sectors) due to a $`Z_2`$ mirror parity . Instead, their masses arise from effective Yukawa interactions and are thus proportional to the relevant Higgs VEVs of electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB). As such, their mass range is constrained to be at the weak scale \[cf., eq. (1)\]. In order to realize $`𝒪(1)`$ effective Yukawa couplings at low energies, supersymmetry itself is broken at a low scale. The large Yukawa couplings also imply that mirror fermion/sfermion loops can significantly modify the CP-even Higgs spectrum at one loop. (This is similar to the usual top/stop sector, but now all three mirror families may contribute).

The MN2SSM Higgs sector is less constrained than that of the MSSM or other $`N=1`$ frameworks. In particular, any one of the four Higgs doublets which appear in MN2SSM  could participate in EWSB. Even when assuming for simplicity a MSSM-like Higgs structure with two-doublets participating in the EWSB, the $`N=2`$ two-Higgs-doublet spectrum could be quite different from that of the MSSM. This is because the tree-level Higgs quartic couplings $`\lambda `$ arise not only from supersymmetric terms $`\lambda g^2`$, for $`g`$ being the gauge coupling, as in the MSSM, but also from hard supersymmetry breaking operators (whose generation goes hand in hand with that of the effective Yukawa couplings) $`\lambda _i(g^2)+\kappa _i`$ , where $`\kappa _i`$ is the contribution from higher order operators in the Kähler potential. Therefore, the usual MSSM relations among the Higgs mass eigenvalues $`m_hm_Hm_Am_{H^\pm }`$ (assuming $`m_Am_Z`$) no longer hold, and the physical Higgs mass spectrum is somewhat arbitrary. This observation is generic to any theory with low-energy supersymmetry breaking where $`\kappa 𝒪(1)`$ is realized .

We note in passing that models with higher dimensions often lead after compactification to an effective $`N=2`$ structure in four-dimensions. Therefore, our analysis of $`N=2`$ models and of the associated mirror families may be applied in certain cases to theories with large extra dimensions.

### C Interplay of Extra Fermions and Two-Higgs-Doublet Sector

It was shown above that one extra chiral generation ($`N_g=1`$) can be accommodated by the precision data with the SM Higgs mass up to about $`500`$ GeV. This is not the case for $`N_g=2`$ and $`N_g=3`$. In fact, the $`N_g=3`$ case, as predicted in the MN2SSM, requires additional new physics contributions (beyond that of a single Higgs doublet) to the oblique parameters. The minimal version of such an extension is to invoke the two-Higgs-doublet sector. For generality (and being consistent with the $`N=2`$ framework described above), we will consider a general 2HDM. Thus, our analysis is valid for any given model which contains two Higgs doublets together with extra families, and our constraints on the parameter space can be readily applied to any such model.

The two-Higgs-doublet sector can lead to a large negative $`T_H`$ (cf. Sec. II C) which will cancel to a large part the three-family fermionic $`T_f`$, and render the sum $`T=T_f+T_H`$ consistent with the experimental bounds over certain regions of the parameter space. For simplicity, we will assume the second and third families to have the same mass spectrum as the first family. This interplay is explored in Fig. 8, which is based on an initial sample of 50000 models. Allowed models are determined by imposing the $`95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.`$ bounds of $`(S,T,U)`$. Figs. 8(a) and (b) display the extra fermions and the Higgs bosons spectra, respectively. We choose, for illustration, a typical set of Higgs inputs $`(m_h,m_H,m_A,m_{H^\pm })=(115,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}120},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1000},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}580})`$ GeV and $`\beta \alpha =3\pi /4`$ in (a), and a set of fermionic inputs $`(M_N,M_E)=(60,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}250})`$ GeV, $`(M_U,M_D)=(250,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}200})`$ GeV in (b), where three values of $`\beta \alpha `$ are shown. Figs. 8(c) and (d) display the allowed points, with the same inputs as (a) and (b), respectively, in the $`ST`$ plane for comparison with the experimental bounds. Variation of $`m_h=115`$ GeV in the $`100200`$ GeV range does not change the results. Also, for clarity, only $`\beta \alpha =\pi `$ is shown in (d), but similar results are obtained for the case of $`\beta \alpha =\pi /2`$, or, $`3\pi /4`$.

The choice of the above Higgs inputs in Figs. 8(a) and (c) corresponds to a small allowed region in the $`M_1M_2`$ plane, i.e., the mirror leptons (dots) are highly non-degenerate, while the mirror quarks (circles) exhibit much smaller isospin breaking. Similar results could be obtained for other choices of Higgs masses, where the Higgs contribution $`T_H`$ is sizable and negative. From Fig. 8(b), one observes that the allowed regions are quite distinct for three choices of $`\beta \alpha (\pi /2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\pi /4,\pi )`$. For $`\beta \alpha =\pi `$, $`m_H`$ could vary in a wide range \[corresponding to case (Ia)\] for $`m_{H^\pm }800`$ GeV. In all other cases, the heavier neutral Higgs $`H^0`$ has to be generally much lighter than 1 TeV. It is interesting to note that for $`m_{H^0}200`$ GeV (i.e., slightly heavier than $`h^0`$), the charged Higgs mass $`m_{H^\pm }`$ is confined into two very narrow regions around either $`350450`$ GeV or $`750800`$ GeV, for a sizable range of $`\beta \alpha `$. Finally, Figs. 8(c) and (d) indicate that the relevant viable parameter space typically corresponds to $`0S0.2`$ and $`0.1T0.2`$. In comparison with the scenario of one-generation and one-Higgs-doublet \[cf., Fig. 7(c)-(d)\], the viable region in the $`ST`$ plane of Fig. 8(c)-(d) has a smaller $`T=T_f+T_H`$. This is due to the more negative $`T_H`$ values contributed by the two-Higgs-doublet sector.

Clearly, there are strong correlations among the allowed Higgs and the fermion mass ranges in the $`N_g=3`$ scenario. This renders the model highly restrictive in its parameter space, and it is thus instructive and encouraging for the relevant experimental tests at the upcoming colliders, such as the Tevatron Run-II, the LHC and the future lepton colliders. Collider signatures, however, merit a dedicated study and will not be discussed here. Before concluding this subsection, we note that in the above we did not address explicitly the less difficult case of $`N_g<3`$. We expect that $`N_g=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ can be accommodated over larger regions of the 2HDM parameter space.

## IV Conclusions

In summary, we have demonstrated that one extra generation of relatively light non-degenerate chiral fermions in the mass range, $`m_Z/2M_f𝒪(H)`$, can be consistent with current precision electroweak data without requiring additional new physics source. Sizable mass splitting between up- and down-type fermions can lead to a large positive $`T`$ without significantly increasing $`S>0`$. This can largely relax the upper bound from precision data on the mass of a SM-like Higgs boson, as shown in Fig. 7.

The case of three extra chiral families was shown to be viable when invoking extra new physics, most notably, a two-Higgs-doublet extension. In order to remain model-independent, we performed the analysis for three extra families with a general two-Higgs-doublet sector. We found, after imposing the oblique precision bounds, a highly restrictive mass spectrum for either the fermion sector or Higgs sector (cf., Fig. 8), which can lead to various distinct collider signatures. The importance of the two-Higgs-doublet sector is in providing a negative contribution to $`T`$, and thus allowing for a large isospin violation in the three family fermion sector.

We have used weak-scale $`N=2`$ supersymmetry  as an explicit theory framework to motivate our study and to define the relevant mass range for the extra chiral families under consideration \[cf., (1)\], as well as to define the Higgs sector. We note that such an effective four-dimensional $`N=2`$ structure can be a consequence of the compactification of certain extra-dimensional theories.

Possible extensions of our study may include: $`(i)`$ a more exhaustive parameter scan of the two-Higgs-doublet sector, allowing for flavor-dependent fermion masses and family mixings; $`(ii)`$ an extended Higgs sector with more than two doublets generating EWSB, which is possible in $`N=2`$ theories ; $`(iii)`$ oblique corrections from relatively light sfermions (and mirror sfermions) and Majorana fermions such as gauginos, Higgsinos, and their mirrors; and $`(iv)`$ the considerations of $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing in extra $`U(1)^{}`$ models . Each of these extensions can affect, in principle, the constraints on $`N_g`$, the two-Higgs-doublet spectrum, and their correlations. However, these are highly model-dependent avenues which are left for future works. In addition, our study may be further extended for a six parameter analysis including $`(S,T,U,V,W,X)`$  together, which may be relevant for the region of $`M_fm_Z`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is our pleasure to thank Jens Erler for various discussions on precision data and for his comments on the manuscript. We also thank Howard E. Haber for conversations on the oblique corrections in the two-Higgs-doublet model and Duane A. Dicus for discussions. H.J.H. is supported by the US Department of Energy (DOE) under grant DE-FG03-93ER40757; N.P. is supported by the DOE under cooperative research agreement No. DF–FC02–94ER40818; and S.S. is supported by the DOE under grant DE-FG03-92-ER-40701 and by the John A. McCone Fellowship.
## A Higgs Contributions to Oblique Parameters

We consider general 2HDM where the Higgs bosons $`(h^0,H^0,A^0,H^\pm )`$ have masses $`(m_h,m_H,m_A,m_{H^\pm })`$, respectively. After subtracting the SM Higgs corrections to $`(S,T,U)`$ with reference choice $`(m_H^{\mathrm{sm}})_{\mathrm{ref}}=m_h`$, the one-loop Higgs contributions to $`(S,T,U)`$ read ,

$`S_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi m_Z^2}}\{\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )_{22}(m_Z^2;m_H^2,m_A^2)_{22}(m_Z^2;m_{H^\pm }^2,m_{H^\pm }^2)`$ (A3)
$`+\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )[_{22}(m_Z^2;m_h^2,m_A^2)+_{22}(m_Z^2;m_Z^2,m_H^2)_{22}(m_Z^2;m_Z^2,m_h^2)`$
$`m_Z^2_0(m_Z^2;m_Z^2,m_H^2)+m_Z^2_0(m_Z^2;m_Z^2,m_h^2)]\},`$
$`T_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi m_W^2s_W^2}}\{F(m_{H^\pm }^2,m_A^2)+\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )[F(m_{H^\pm }^2,m_H^2)F(m_A^2,m_H^2)]`$ (A6)
$`+\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )[F(m_{H^\pm }^2,m_h^2)F(m_A^2,m_h^2)+F(m_W^2,m_H^2)F(m_W^2,m_h^2)`$
$`F(m_Z^2,m_H^2)+F(m_Z^2,m_h^2)+4m_Z^2\overline{B}_0(m_Z^2,m_H^2,m_h^2)4m_W^2\overline{B}_0(m_W^2,m_H^2,m_h^2)]\},`$
$`U_H`$ $`=`$ $`S_H+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi m_{Z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\{_{22}(m_W^2;m_A^2,m_{H^\pm }^2)2_{22}(m_W^2;m_{H^\pm }^2,m_{H^\pm }^2)`$ (A10)
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )_{22}(m_W^2;m_H^2,m_{H^\pm }^2)+\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )[_{22}(m_W^2;m_h^2,m_{H^\pm }^2)`$
$`+_{22}(m_W^2;m_W^2,m_H^2)_{22}(m_W^2;m_W^2,m_h^2)`$
$`m_W^2_0(m_W^2;m_W^2,m_H^2)+m_W^2_0(m_W^2;m_W^2,m_h^2)]\},`$
where we have explicitly worked out the finite part of $``$-functions:

$`_0(q^2;m_1^2,m_2^2)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_1+x_2}{x_1x_2}}(x_1x_2)\right]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f(x_1,x_2),`$ (A11)
$`\stackrel{m_1=m_2}{}`$ $`22\sqrt{4x_11}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4x_11}}},`$ (A12)
$`\overline{B}_0(m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2)`$ $``$ $`B_0(0;m_1^2,m_2^2)B_0(0;m_1^2,m_3^2)`$ (A13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2\mathrm{ln}m_1^2m_3^2\mathrm{ln}m_3^2}{m_1^2m_3^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2\mathrm{ln}m_1^2m_2^2\mathrm{ln}m_2^2}{m_1^2m_2^2}},`$ (A14)
$`_{22}(q^2;m_1^2,m_2^2)`$ $``$ $`B_{22}(q^2;m_1^2,m_2^2)B_{22}(0;m_1^2,m_2^2)`$ (A15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{24}}\{2\mathrm{ln}q^2+\mathrm{ln}(x_1x_2)+[(x_1x_2)^33(x_1^2x_2^2)`$ (A18)
$`+3(x_1x_2)]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x_2}}[2(x_1x_2)^28(x_1+x_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}]`$
$`[(x_1x_2)^22(x_1+x_2)+1]f(x_1,x_2)6F(x_1,x_2)\},`$
$`\stackrel{m_1=m_2}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{24}}\left[2\mathrm{ln}q^2+2\mathrm{ln}x_1+\left(16x_1{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\right)+\left(4x_11\right)G(x_1)\right],`$ (A19)
$`F(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_1+x_2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{x_1x_2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x_2}},`$ (A20)
$`G(x)`$ $`=`$ $`4\sqrt{4x1}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4x1}}},`$ (A21)
$`f(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left[\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2+1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_21}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\right],\hfill & (\mathrm{\Delta }>0),\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & (\mathrm{\Delta }=0),\hfill \\ \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1+x_21+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{x_1+x_21\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}},\hfill & (\mathrm{\Delta }<0),\hfill \end{array}`$ (A25)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`2(x_1+x_2)(x_1x_2)^21,`$ (A26)
with $`x_i{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{q^2}}`$ .

The various expressions are simplified in the limit of $`m_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^2m_Z^2`$. The approximate formula for $`T_H`$ in this limit has already been given in eq. (18). Similarly, eqs. (A3) and (A10) reduce in this limit to

$`S_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\pi }}(\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_H^2}{m_h^2}}+g(m_h^2,m_A^2)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{H^\pm }^2}{m_hm_A}}]`$ (A27)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )[g(m_H^2,m_A^2)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{H^\pm }^2}{m_Hm_A}}]),`$ (A28)
$`U_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\pi }}(\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )[g(m_h^2,m_{H^\pm }^2)+g(m_A^2,m_{H^\pm }^2)g(m_h^2,m_A^2)]`$ (A29)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )[g(m_H^2,m_{H^\pm }^2)+g(m_A^2,m_{H^\pm }^2)g(m_H^2,m_A^2)]),`$ (A30)
where

$$g(x_1,x_2)=\frac{5}{6}+\frac{2x_1x_2}{(x_1x_2)^2}+\frac{(x_1+x_2)(x_1^24x_1x_2+x_2^2)}{2(x_1x_2)^3}\mathrm{ln}\frac{x_1}{x_2}.$$
(A31)