format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

For some time there has been increased interest in possible extensions of the Standard Model (SM) that allow for fields living in extra dimensions. One possible scenario, referred to as the Universal Extra Dimensions (UED) model  assumes that all the SM degrees of freedom propagate in compactified extra dimension of the size of $`R\text{TeV}^1`$ 111The first studies of possible effects of SM fields living in TeV-scale extra dimensions were performed by I. Antoniadis . . It has been shown that in fact $`R^1`$ as low as $`0.3\text{TeV}`$ is allowed by the precision electroweak observables . Constraints from flavor changing processes have been carefully analyzed in refs., while the anomalous magnetic moment has been studied in ref.. All the analysis conclude that even $`R^10.3\text{TeV}`$ is consistent with the existing experimental data. The main reason for the suppression of extra contributions to the above observables is the momentum conservation in the fifth dimension. In the equivalent 4D theory this implies that an emission of a single non-zero Kaluza-Klein (KK) mode is forbidden. Consequently there is no tree-level contributions to the electroweak observables, and therefore KK effects are suppressed. However, the large size of $`R`$ could lead to exciting phenomenology at the next generation of colliders .

Constraints from the precision electroweak observables on the Higgs physics have been analyzed in refs.  and . In particular the ref.  shows the allowed region for the Higgs-boson mass $`m_h`$ and the compactification radius $`R`$ in the 5D UED compactified on $`S^1/Z_2`$. It turns out that for $`m_h0.9\text{TeV}`$ even $`R^10.25\text{TeV}`$ is allowed. Since effects of KK modes appear at the 1-loop therefore one could expect their relevance for processes that emerge at the 1-loop level in the SM, an illustration of that reasoning could be found in refs. , and . Here we will consider influence of extra dimensional physics on the stability of the ground state. It is well known that within the SM model  and variety of its extensions  contributions from fermionic degrees of freedom could lead to an effective potential that is unbounded from below, provided the Higgs boson mass is small enough . That implies an lower bound on $`m_h`$ as a function of the cut-off scale below which the theory is supposed to be stable. Since the compactification of the 5D theory leads to existence of an infinite tower of 4D fermions, therefore it is natural to expect that the SM picture of the effective potential will be modified222For earlier discussion of the instability within extra dimensional theories see ref... Indeed, as we have found the influence of fermionic KK modes on the scale of stability is dramatic, the scale could be shifted by many orders of magnitude!

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we discuss generic properties of the effective potential both in the cut-off and the dimensional regularization. Section 3 presents details of the 5D model considered here and also analytical results for the effective potential. In Section 4, we discuss numerical results. Concluding remarks are given in Section 5.

## 2 The generic effective potential

Here we will present results for a contribution to the one-loop effective potential coming from an infinite tower of virtual KK modes (numbered by an integer $`n`$). The following generic formula is applicable both for fermions and bosons circulating333For vector bosons the Landau gauge should be adopted, while for fermions extra minus sign must be added. in loops:

$$V(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{ln}[l^2E^2+(n+\omega )^2\pi ^2],$$
(1)
where $`\omega `$ is a constant shift, $`E^2p^2+m^2(\phi )`$, $`m^2(\phi )`$ is the background field dependent mass squared of virtual KK modes, the momentum $`p`$ is defined in the Euclidean space ($`p^2=p_0^2+(\stackrel{}{p})^2`$), the field independent factor $`l\pi R`$ was introduced for dimensional reasons and all unnecessary constant terms have been dropped.

### 2.1 Divergences

There are two sources of possible divergences appearing in the effective potential (1): i) the momentum integration, and ii) the infinite sum over KK modes. The integral could be regularized either by the dimensional method or by the cut-off, while for the sum one can, for instance, use the method adopted by Delgado, Pomarol and Quirós (DPQ) in ref. , the $`\zeta `$ regularization (see e.g. ) or just truncation of the series (for the discussion see refs. ,).

There is a comment here in order. Since both the integration and the summation are not convergent therefore the interchange of their ordering seems to be a non-trivial issue. This question was already addressed in ref.  in the framework of 5D SUSY model compactified on the orbifold $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$. The authors computed the effective potential performing first the integration with dimensional regularization and then adopting the $`\zeta `$ regularization for the KK sum. It has been shown that when dimensional regularization is adopted444The effective potential found in ref.  was ultraviolet divergent, however note that the cut-off regularization was adopted there. It is easy to see that for the dimensional regularization the result would be finite. then both orderings lead to the same ultraviolet finite result separately for scalars and fermions. So, the “KK regularization” used both in ref.  and in ref.  leads to the same result. However this regularization seems to suffer from certain drawbacks:

* Since the 5D theory is non-renormalizable therefore there must exist certain physical cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5`$, related to the scale of more fundamental high-energy physics, e.g. string theory. Therefore performing loop expansion in 5D it would be natural to cut all loop integrals $`d^5p`$ at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5`$. From the 4D perspective the summation over KK modes corresponds to the integration over the fifth momentum component, so it seems to be appropriate to limit the sum to $`n<\mathrm{\Lambda }_5R`$, what would roughly guarantee that we sum all modes that are lighter than the cut-off. In contrast to this strategy the KK-regularization requires summation over all the modes, therefore its physical meaning seems to be rather unclear555An interesting observation has been made in refs. ,, where the authors showed that the vanishing of quadratic divergences that happens separately for bosons and fermions is a consequence of cancellation between contributions of states of mass larger than the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5`$ and light states laying below the cut-off..
* The ref.  shows that for the KK-regularization the resulting effective potential in the limit $`R0`$ is different when we decompactify ($`R0`$) before the regularization (assuming that all non-zero KK modes decouple in this case one recovers the 4D effective potential generated just by the zero mode) and after the regularization (the KK-regularized effective potential diverges in this limit).

In this paper we are going to discuss vacuum stability, so for a given mass of the Higgs boson zero mode we will determine the scale below which the model makes sense (the vacuum is stable). Therefore it seems to be meaningful to restrict the mass spectrum of the KK modes to those which are lighter than the cut-off, so in the following we will also consider truncation of series over KK modes to those $`n<n_{max}\mathrm{\Lambda }_5R`$. From the 5D perspective, this will correspond to a cut-off for the integration over the fifth momentum component. Then, of course, the sum is finite and therefore question of ordering for the summation and integration becomes meaningless. Concerning the regularization of the $`d^4p`$ integral the analogous approach would be to adopt a cut-off regulator. We will illustrate this strategy below.

Even though the cut-off regularization seems to be the most natural one, there exist also arguments against it. The standard objections are the following:

* Because of the compactification on the circle, the shift along the extra direction; $`yy+2\pi R`$ should leave the theory unchanged. Therefore the fifth component of momentum is quantized to be elements of $`𝒵/R`$. A consequence of that is the “integer shift” symmetry, i.e. a symmetry under an integer shift of KK modes. Obviously, cutting the series breaks the symmetry, as there would be no modes to go.
* Another drawback of the regularization through a limited number of modes is the fact that 5D gauge invariance is broken in that case. Namely, limiting the number of KK modes we impose a condition on the 5D gauge transformation parameter $`\theta (x,y)`$ that has the following general expansion:

$$\theta (x,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}\left[\theta _0(x)+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\theta _n(x)\mathrm{cos}(m_ny)\right].$$
(2)
Therefore, if we had summed up to $`n_{max}`$, then obviously, the series would not be able to reproduce all possible 5D gauge parameter functions $`\theta (x,y)`$.

So, it is essential to look for a regularization prescription that would be consistent with all the symmetries that are present. The dimensional regularization is the standard option that satisfy the requirement. An interesting and natural generalization of dimensional regularization for sums over KK modes was developed in refs. ,. The strategy is in its spirit similar to the method adopted earlier by DPQ in ref. , namely the sum could be traded for a one-dimensional contour integral that one can regularize by analytic continuation in the number of dimensions. The great advantage of this approach is that both the gauge and also the “integer shift” symmetries are preserved.

Therefore for completeness and comparison we will consider in the following sections the effective potential found adopting both the cut-off regularization with limited KK-summation and the KK regularization  proposed by DPQ666As it will be discussed shortly the KK regularization leads to the same result as the dimensional regularization of the sum over KK modes and of the integral along the line proposed in refs. ,..

### 2.2 Limited KK-summation and cut-off regularization

In this section we will discuss an effective potential within a 5D theory of a scalar field assuming that only a zero mode (in KK expansion) of the scalar can acquire a vacuum expectation value: $`\phi `$. Because of later applications we will restrict ourself to the sum over non-negative $`n`$ and $`\omega =0`$ in the effective potential (1). Then for a limited number of KK modes with the 4D cut-off ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) regularization the effective potential reads:

$$V_{effbare}^{1loop}=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}\left\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2(\phi )+\frac{1}{2}[m^2(\phi )+m_n^2]^2\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2(\phi )+m_n^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\frac{1}{2}\right]\right\},$$
(3)
where $`m_n^2(n/R)^2`$ and $`n_{max}\mathrm{\Lambda }_5R`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5`$ being the 5D cut-off of the $`dp_5`$ integration. Therefore imposing such a limit on the number of modes is roughly equivalent to 5D cut-off regularization of $`dp_5`$ integration. The terms that are divergent in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ are the following

$`V_{eff}^{1loop}|_{div}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n_{max}+1)}{32\pi ^2}}\{m^2(\phi )[\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_{max}}{3R^2}}(1+2n_{max})\mathrm{ln}(R\mathrm{\Lambda })]m^4(\phi )\mathrm{ln}(R\mathrm{\Lambda })\}.`$
There is a comment here in order. In a case of mixing between virtual degrees of freedom, non-diagonal mass matrices may appear and the eigen values are in general non-polynomial functions of $`\phi `$ (see for example the $`(A_{5n},\chi _n)`$-system for the model discussed in sec.3). At first sight this seems to jeopardize the process of renormalization since only $`\phi ^2`$ and $`\phi ^4`$ counter-terms are at our disposal while the divergent contributions appear to be non-polynomial functions of $`\phi `$. However, for a general mass matrix we should replace $`m^2(\phi )`$ and $`m^4(\phi )`$ that appear in $`V_{eff}^{1loop}|_{div}`$ by $`Tr[m^2(\phi )]`$ and $`Tr[m^4(\phi )]`$, respectively. Since $`Tr[\mathrm{}]`$ is invariant under diagonalization, one may use the non-diagonal basis here, then, because all elements of the initial non-diagonal mass matrix squared are in general quadratic in $`\phi `$, therefore the counter-terms at hand turns out to be sufficient to remove all the divergences.

Let us now specify the theory as a real $`\varphi ^4`$ theory in 5D defined by the following potential:

$$V_{tree}=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{4}\lambda _5\varphi ^4$$
(5)
Note that $`\lambda _5`$ is dimension-full and $`\varphi `$ has dimension of $`\mathrm{mass}^{3/2}`$, while $`\phi `$ (the classical zero-mode scalar field) has dimension of mass. After reducing to 4D the tree level bare potential for the classical field $`\phi `$ is the following:

$$V_{tree}=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\phi ^2+\frac{1}{4}\lambda \phi ^4$$
(6)
where now $`\lambda `$ is dimensionless. In order to remove the divergent contributions one has to adopt appropriate counter-terms. The renormalization conditions that we will choose are the following:

$$\frac{d^2V_{eff}}{d\phi ^2}|_{\phi =0}=\mu _r^2,\frac{d^4V_{eff}}{d\phi ^4}|_{\phi =0}=3!\lambda _r$$
(7)
for the 4D tree-level potential shown in (5). The bare parameters $`\mu ^2`$ and $`\lambda `$ are related to the renormalized ones and to the counter-terms through:

$$\mu ^2=\mu _r^2+\delta \mu ^2,\lambda =\lambda _r+\delta \lambda .$$
(8)
In the case of the potential (5) we have the following form of $`m^2(\phi )`$

$$m^2(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2m^2(\phi )}{d\phi ^2}_{|\phi =0}\phi ^2+m^2(0)$$
(9)
It is straightforward to prove that the conditions (7) lead to the following counter-terms:

$`\delta \mu ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2V_{eff}^{1loop}}{d\phi ^2}}_{|\phi =0}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2m^2(\phi )}{d\phi ^2}}_{|\phi =0}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+(m^2(0)+m_n^2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2(0)+m_n^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4V_{eff}^{1loop}}{d\phi ^4}}_{|\phi =0}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2m^2(\phi )}{d\phi ^2}}\right)_{|\phi =0}^2\left[1+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2(0)+m_n^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)\right].`$
It could be easily verified that the above counter-terms do cancel the divergences in $`V_{eff}^{1loop}|_{div}`$, note that the form of $`m^2(\phi )`$ given in (9) is essential for the cancellation. Eventually, the renormalized 1-loop contribution to the effective potential reads:

$`V_{effrenI}^{1loop\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m^2(\phi )+m_n^2)^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2(\phi )+m_n^2}{m^2(0)+m_n^2}}\right)+`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}m^4(\phi )+m^2(\phi )[m^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_n^2]\}`$
As it was already mentioned for general non-diagonal mass matrices the condition (9) does not hold. Nevertheless, as we have already discussed above the renormalization procedure could be successfully performed. Then it would be convenient to split the counter-terms into divergent and finite parts. Since the divergent contributions to the effective potential are linear functions of $`m^2(\phi )`$ and $`m^4(\phi )`$ only, therefore they can be replaced by $`Tr[m^2(\phi )]`$ and $`Tr[m^4(\phi )]`$, respectively and for them (in the non-diagonal basis) the form (9) holds. However, for finite parts the renormalization conditions (7) turns out to be very inconvenient as they lead to quite complicated expressions for the renormalized effective potential, therefore one can modify the above renormalization prescription such that one will only keep the divergent parts of $`\delta m^2`$ and $`\delta \lambda `$. However, we will not discuss this renormalization prescription hereafter.

### 2.3 Dimensional regularization

It will be useful to repeat the derivation of the effective potential proposed by DPQ  and compare with the dimensional regularization of the KK sum adopted in ref. . In order to find $`V(\phi )`$ defined in eq.(1) we first define

$$W=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left[(lE)^2+(n+\omega )^2\pi ^2\right].$$
(13)
Instead of $`W`$ we calculate

$$\frac{W}{E}=l^2E\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(lE)^2+(n+\omega )^2\pi ^2}$$
(14)
that is already convergent. By that procedure, an infinite, but constant ($`E`$-independent) term was dropped. This is, of course, legal, since the constant is $`\phi `$ independent and therefore its elimination corresponds to the renormalization of the cosmological constant. Then replacing the infinite sum in (14) by an integral in the complex plane and applying the residues theorem to perform the integral leads to the following result:

$$W=lE+\frac{1}{2}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left(1re^{2lE}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left(1r^1e^{2lE}\right)\right\},$$
(15)
where $`re^{2i\omega \pi }`$. The first term in (15), that is the limit of the full $`W`$ when $`R\mathrm{}`$, leads to the effective potential for the uncompactified 5D:

$$V^{(\mathrm{})}=l\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\sqrt{p^2+m^2(\phi )}$$
(16)
The integral over $`d^4p`$ is obviously divergent, let us adopt regularization by a cut-off (as it was done in ref. ) and for comparison also the dimensional regularization:

$$V^{(\mathrm{})}=\frac{R}{60\pi }\{\begin{array}{cc}m^5(\phi )+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+m^2(\phi )}\left[3\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2(\phi )2m^4(\phi )\right]\hfill & \mathrm{cut}\mathrm{off}\hfill \\ m^5(\phi )\hfill & \mathrm{dim}\hfill \end{array}$$

It is seen that $`V^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is finite when the dimensional regularization is adopted.

As we have already mentioned there are two sources of divergences: the sum and the $`d^4p`$ integral. In ref.  the sum was regularized-renormalized through the differentiation and then integration with respect to $`E`$, while for the divergent integral the result is shown in (2.3) as the cut-off option. It turns out that the dimensional regularization of both the sum and the integral proposed in ref.  leads to the same result as the one presented above provided the integral is dimensionally regularized. It will be instructive to compare both methods in order to understand the puzzling agreement. In ref.  the sum is regularized by the following replacement (see eq.(11) of ref. ):

$$I=d^4p_4\underset{n0}{}f(p_4,\frac{n}{R})\frac{1}{2\pi i}d^{D_4}p_4_{}d^{D_5}p_5𝒫^+(p_5)f(p_4,p_5),$$
(17)
where the notation of ref.  was adopted. Then the author concludes that in fact it would be enough to regularize the integral since the divergent part appears to be a function of $`D_4+D_5`$ only. For a first sight this statement looks confusing since we might have started with a divergent sum on the lhs of eq.(17). The sum is replaced by the integral over $`d^{D_5}p_5`$ and it looks that this regularization of the sum is needed. The solution of this illusive puzzle seems to be the following. Note that for the effective potential calculation, the function $`f(p_4,\frac{n}{R})`$ depends on the background field dependent mass $`m(\phi )`$ only through $`p_4^2+m^2(\phi )`$. Therefore a constant that is $`p_4`$-independent on the lhs of (17) does not depend on $`m(\phi )`$ as well. Since the divergence of the sum was dropped in the DPQ approach by the differentiation and then integration with respect to $`E`$ therefore we know that it was $`p_4^2+m^2(\phi )`$-independent constant. Let us now locate this divergence in the dimensional approach. It turns out that it is hidden (and then erased) in eq.(17), namely the dimensional regularization of the integral over $`d^4p_4`$ at the same time regularize the integral and also removes the constant ($`p_4`$-independent) contribution to the sum! This happens because of the following peculiar property of the dimensional regularization

$$d^{D_4}p_4(\mathrm{constant})=0.$$
(18)
Therefore, no wonder that in fact it is not necessary to regularize the sum if the dimensional regularization is adopted for the $`d^4p_4`$! The dimensional regularization takes care of both the divergent integral and the divergent constant contribution to the sum. So, it is clear now why both the method adopted by DPQ  and the one developed in ref.  lead to the same result777At most they may differ by $`m(\phi )`$-independent constant. We have confirmed that by explicate calculation. The results are identical separately for boson and fermion contributions to the effective potential..

In the remaining part of this paper we will apply methods developed in this section to 5D U(1) model of universal extra dimensions. Then, expressions for the effective potential will either contain sums that start at a zero mode ($`n=0`$) or at $`n=1`$888Note that in ref.  the summation is performed form $`n=\mathrm{}`$ to $`n=+\mathrm{}`$, while here we have considered separately the zero-mode contribution and the remaining KK modes from $`n=1`$ to $`n=+\mathrm{}`$, that explains the factor $`1/2`$ in eq.(19).. Therefore the final result (for $`\omega =0`$) for both cases in dimensional regularization of the $`d^4p`$ integral is the following :

$$V(m^2)=\frac{1}{2}\left(V^{(\mathrm{})}(m^2)+V^{(R)}(m^2)\pm V_0(m^2)\right),$$
(19)
where $`+`$ or $``$ corresponds to the zero mode included or excluded in the sum, respectively. The contributions to the effective potential read:

$`V^{(\mathrm{})}(m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}m^5(\phi )`$
$`V_0(m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi ^2}}m^4(\phi )\left\{C_{UV}+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2(\phi )}{\kappa ^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right\}`$
$`V^{(R)}(m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi ^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}\left\{x^2\mathrm{Li}_3(e^x)+3x\mathrm{Li}_4(e^x)+3\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_5(e^x)\right\},`$ (20)
where $`x2\pi R\sqrt{m^2(\phi )}`$, $`C_{UV}=\frac{2}{4n}\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}(4\pi )`$ ($`\gamma _E=0.5772\mathrm{}`$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant), $`\kappa `$ is the regularization scale and $`V^{(\mathrm{})}`$ corresponds to the decompactification limit ($`R\mathrm{}`$), $`V^{(R)}`$ is the contribution from all the KK modes (summed from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$) and $`V_0`$ is the zero mode effective potential. The polylogarithm $`Li_n(x)`$ is defined by

$$Li_n(x)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^s}{s^n}.$$
(21)
Note that $`V^{(\mathrm{})}`$, $`V_0`$ and $`V^{(R)}`$ contributions correspond exactly to the three terms separated in ref.  and denoted by $`I_{5D}`$, $`I_{4D}`$ and $`I_{finite}`$, respectively. It is amazing that the divergence from the zero mode is still there, while in DPQ approach with dimensional regularization it was gone (note that there the KK summation started at $`n=\mathrm{}`$). This means that the singular contribution from the zero mode must be canceled by the sum over $`n0`$ in the DPQ method. The explanation of this is the presence of the zero mode in the above consideration.

In order to get rid of the singularities present in $`V_0`$ we will adopt the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization, then the 1-loop contribution to the effective potential reads:

$$V_{effren}^{1loop\overline{MS}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(V^{(\mathrm{})}(m^2)+V^{(R)}(m^2)\pm V_{0finite}(m^2)\right),$$
(22)
where $`V_{0finite}`$ is $`V_0`$ with the term $`C_{UV}`$ subtracted.

### 2.4 Decoupling of heavy KK modes.

In sec.2.2 we have discussed the one-loop effective potential for 5D $`\phi ^4`$ theory described by the tree-level potential specified in eq.(5). Using the cut-off regularization of the 4D integral and adopting the on-shell renormalization conditions (7) we have found in eq.(12) the renormalized effective potential that originates from the first $`n_{max}`$ KK modes that can be written as:

$$V_{effrenI}^{1loop\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}V_n(\phi )$$
(23)
for

$$V_n(\phi )=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(m^2(\phi )+m_n^2\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2(\phi )+m_n^2}{m^2(0)+m_n^2}\right)\frac{3}{4}m^4(\phi )+m^2(\phi )\left[m^2(0)\frac{1}{2}m_n^2\right]\right\},$$
(24)
where $`m^2(\phi )`$ was defined in eq.(9). In order to investigate the decoupling of heavy KK modes (corresponding to large $`n`$) in the model it is useful to expand $`V_n(\phi )`$ in the limit of $`n\mathrm{}`$ and then sum over $`n`$:

$$V_{effrenI}^{1loop\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}\left[\frac{1}{2}m^2(0)m_n^2+\frac{1}{4}m^4(0)+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{n^2}\right)\right]$$
(25)
As it is seen, only leading ($`m_n^2`$) and sub-leading ($`m_n`$-independent) terms are divergent when the summation over $`n`$ is performed in the limit $`n_{max}\mathrm{}`$. The key observations is that those terms are $`\varphi `$ independent! Even though the above sum is divergent, the divergence is a constant, $`\phi `$-independent contribution to the effective potential and therefore will be irrelevant. That happens because there is no couplings that could grow with $`n`$999In the next section we will discuss in details the 5D model based on U(1) gauge symmetry. We will observe there that mass matrix for the $`(A_{5n},\chi _n)`$ system is non-diagonal and in fact the off-diagonal entries are of the form $`n\phi /R`$, so that suggest that there exist coupling constants growing with $`n`$. However as it will be seen, the determinant and the trace of the mass matrix grows as $`n^4/R^4`$ and $`n^2/R^2`$, therefore even in that case in the limit of large $`n`$ we shall anticipate decoupling of heavy modes. The explicit calculations confirm this expectation.. Of course, the remaining, finite part of the effective potential (denoted in eq.(25) by $`𝒪(1/n^2)`$) depends on $`\phi `$ and leads to the genuine effective potential101010The corresponding analogous phenomena could be also found in the method of DPQ ; as it was discussed earlier, an infinite $`\phi `$-independent term was dropped there through differentiation and subsequent integration over $`E`$.. In other words, the decoupling of heavy KK modes takes place as a consequence of renormalization of the cosmological constant.

In order to discuss the decoupling more quantitatively, it is worth to compare the effective potential obtained within the cut-off regularization (12) with the one for the minimal subtraction (22). One could wish to plot the simple ratio: $`V_{effrenI}^{1loop\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\phi )/V_{effren}^{1loop\overline{MS}}(\phi )`$. However, it turns out that in the vicinity of $`\phi 0`$ the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized 1-loop contribution to the effective potential has a zero and the plot of the ratio is very unstable. Fortunately, the value of 1-loop contribution both to $`V_{effrenI}^{1loop\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\phi )`$ and $`V_{effren}^{1loop\overline{MS}}(\phi )`$ is in this region by far negligible comparing to the tree level contribution. Therefore we will modify the naive ratio as follows:

* Since the tree-level potential is the reference point for 1-loop corrections therefore we will add $`V_{tree}(\phi )`$ both in the denominator and the numerator.
* To eliminate the unwanted irrelevant constant contributions111111It is especially important in light of proceeding discussion of the decoupling in the case of the cut-off regularization. to the effective potentials we will subtract $`V_{eff}(0)`$ contributions both in the denominator and the numerator.
* The effective potentials obtained according to the above prescription have zeros in the vicinity $`\phi 0`$ that are slightly misplaced in the denominator and the numerator, therefore we introduce a constant shift $`V_0`$ in order to screen the instability caused by the zero of the denominator.

So, we will adopt the following ratio to compare the cut-off and dimensional regularization:

$$r(\kappa ,n_{max};\phi )\frac{V_{tree}(\phi )+\left[V_{effrenI}^{1loop\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\phi )V_{effrenI}^{1loop\mathrm{\Lambda }}(0)\right]+V_0}{V_{tree}(\phi )+\left[V_{effren}^{1loop\overline{MS}}(\phi )V_{effren}^{1loop\overline{MS}}(0)\right]+V_0}$$
(26)
The ratio $`r=r(\kappa ,n_{max};\phi )`$ is, of course, a function of the cut-off ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5=n_{max}/R`$) and the regularization scale ($`\kappa `$). In fig.1 we plot $`r=r(n_{max}/(2R),n_{max};\phi )`$ for $`n_{max}=10,20,50`$ and $`500`$, what corresponds to the choice121212Other possible choices of $`\kappa `$, e.g. $`\kappa =\phi `$, do not change results for $`r`$ substantially. Note, that here we have decided to adopt the same cut-off for 4D and 5D: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. of the regularization scale $`\kappa =\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$. For a given $`n_{max}`$, the ratio $`r=r(n_{max}/(2R),n_{max};\phi )`$ is plotted against $`\phi `$ varying from 0 up to the appropriate cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=n_{max}/R`$. Note, however, that the cut-off corresponding to $`n_{max}=500`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=350\text{TeV}`$, is not shown for the sake of clarity of the figure. However, it has been checked that even in this case $`r`$ remains within the 5% distance from 1. For the purpose of fig.1, we have used the mass parameter $`\mu =0.08\text{TeV}`$, the quartic coupling constant $`\lambda =0.1`$, and the shift $`V_0=0.01\text{TeV}^4`$ 131313If we plotted $`r`$ for $`\phi >1\text{TeV}`$ (that is large enough to pass the zero of the denominator) we would not need to introduce $`V_0`$.. It has been checked that for $`0V_01\text{TeV}^4`$ the ratio $`r`$ remains below $`1.05`$ for $`\phi >1\text{TeV}`$ even though the shape in the region $`1<\phi <5\text{TeV}`$ is influenced by the choice of $`V_0`$. However, it should be emphasized that for $`\phi >5\text{TeV}`$ (for the stability we will discuss the effective potential for field strength $`\phi 1\text{TeV}`$) the curves are almost insensitive to $`V_0`$.

As it is seen from the plot, even though for small $`\phi `$, $`r(\kappa ,n_{max};\phi )`$ is a monotonically rising function of $`n_{max}`$ (the curves corresponding to growing $`n_{max}`$ are being shifted up), nevertheless, eventually for larger $`\phi `$, $`r`$ approaches 1 closer for curves corresponding to larger $`n_{max}`$. In fact, this is what we should expect if the effective potential calculated in the cut-off and $`\overline{MS}`$ schemes were close.

Conclusion that can be drawn from this picture is that the cut-off and the minimal subtraction schemes are consistent and the dependence on the cut-off is very weak. One should however remember that we have adopted two different renormalization schemes and therefore the agreement is never expected to be perfect.

## 3 U(1) Model

In this section we will construct a simple 5D model that could successfully mimic the SM as far as the shape of the effective potential is concerned. For a gauge group we choose U(1). In order to break spontaneously the symmetry, we will introduce a complex scalar $`\varphi `$. To have a zero-mode massive fermion (the analog of the top quark) we will have to introduce two 5D fermions: $`\psi `$ and $`\lambda `$. The model is defined by the Lagrangian density:

$$(x,y)=\frac{1}{4}F^{MN}F_{MN}+(D_M\varphi )^{}(D^M\varphi )V^{(5)}(\varphi )+_{GF}^{(5)}+_f^{(5)},$$
(27)
where

$`F_{MN}(x,y)`$ $``$ $`_MA_N(x,y)_NA_M(x,y)`$
$`D_M`$ $``$ $`_M+ie_5A_M(x,y)`$
$`V^{(5)}(\varphi )`$ $``$ $`\mu ^2|\varphi |^2+\lambda _5|\varphi |^4`$
$`\varphi (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[h(x,y)+i\chi (x,y)\right]`$
$`yx^4,`$
where $`A_M`$ is a gauge field, $`D_M`$ is a covariant derivative. We will assume that the tree-level potential is stable, so $`\lambda _5>0`$.

Hereafter we will adopt the following form of the gauge fixing Lagrangian141414For discussion of the Lorentz non-covariant $`R_\xi `$ gauges, see refs. ,.:

$$_{GF}^{(5)}=\frac{1}{2\xi }\left[_\mu A^\mu \xi \left(_5A_5+e_5\frac{v\chi }{\sqrt{2\pi R}}\right)\right]^2,$$
(28)
where $`v=h_0`$ is the vacuum expectation value of the zero mode of the scalar $`h(x,y)`$.

In order to generate massive zero-modes for fermions we will introduce here two fermion fields, one charged ($`\psi (x,y)`$) and one neutral ($`\lambda (x,y)`$) under U(1):

$`_f^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }(x,y)\gamma ^M\left[i_M+e_5A_M\right]\psi (x,y)+\overline{\lambda }(x,y)\gamma ^Mi_M\lambda (x,y)+`$ (29)
$`\left[g_5\overline{\psi }(x,y)\varphi (x,y)\lambda (x,y)+\text{h.c.}\right].`$
The action of the U(1) local symmetry is defined by:

$`\varphi (x,y)`$ $``$ $`e^{ie_5\theta (x,y)}\varphi (x,y)`$
$`\psi (x,y)`$ $``$ $`e^{ie_5\theta (x,y)}\psi (x,y)`$
$`\lambda (x,y)`$ $``$ $`\lambda (x,y)`$
$`A_M(x,y)`$ $``$ $`A_M(x,y)+_M\theta (x,y).`$ (30)
The compactification of the extra dimension is specified by the following $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold conditions:
$``$ all the fields and the gauge function $`\theta (x,y)`$ remain unchanged under a shift $`yy+2\pi R`$,
$``$

$`A_\mu (x,y)=A_\mu (x,y)`$ $`A_5(x,y)=A_5(x,y)`$ (31)
$`\varphi (x,y)=\varphi (x,y)`$
$`\psi _R(x,y)=\psi _R(x,y)`$ $`\psi _L(x,y)=\psi _L(x,y)`$
$`\lambda _L(x,y)=\lambda _L(x,y)`$ $`\lambda _R(x,y)=\lambda _R(x,y)`$
$`\theta (x,y)=\theta (x,y).`$
KK expansions read:

$`A^\mu (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}}\left[A_0^\mu (x)+\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_n^\mu (x)\mathrm{cos}(m_ny)\right]`$
$`A^5(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_n^5(x)\mathrm{sin}(m_ny)`$
$`\varphi (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\varphi _n(x)\mathrm{cos}(m_ny)`$ (32)
$`\psi (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}}\left\{\psi _{R\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)+\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[\psi _{Rn}(x)\mathrm{cos}(m_ny)+\psi _{Ln}(x)\mathrm{sin}(m_ny)\right]\right\}`$
$`\lambda (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}}\left\{\lambda _{L\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(x)+\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[\lambda _{Ln}(x)\mathrm{cos}(m_ny)+\lambda _{Rn}(x)\mathrm{sin}(m_ny)\right]\right\}`$
$`\theta (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\theta _n(x)\mathrm{cos}(m_ny),`$
where $`m_nn/R`$, subscripts R and L are referring to 4D chiral fields and it is assumed that $`A_{\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}0}}=0`$. In the following we will adopt the following notation for the real and imaginary parts of $`\varphi _n(x)`$:

$$\varphi _0=\frac{1}{2}\left(h_0+i\chi _0\right),\varphi _{n0}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(h_n+i\chi _n).$$
(33)
It is worth noticing that after compactification the 4D Lagrangian expressed in terms of KK modes is still gauge invariant and the $`U(1)`$ transformations of the gauge fields read:

$`A_{n\mu }(x)`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}A_{0\mu }(x)+\sqrt{2}_\mu \theta _0(x)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & n=0\hfill \\ A_{n\mu }(x)+_\mu \theta _n(x)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & n0\hfill \end{array}`$ (36)
$`A_{n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}}(x)`$ $``$ $`A_{n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}}(x){\displaystyle \frac{n}{R}}\theta _n(x).`$ (37)
The corresponding infinitesimal transformation for $`\varphi _n(x)`$ is the following:

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi _0(x)\varphi _0(x)\frac{ie}{\sqrt{2}}(2\theta _0(x)\varphi _0(x)+_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}\theta _m(x)\varphi _m(x)),\hfill \\ \varphi _n(x)\varphi _n(x)\frac{ie}{\sqrt{2}}_{m,l=0}^{\mathrm{}}A_{nml}\theta _m(x)\varphi _l(x),\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
where $`A_{nml}`$ is defined in the Appendix A and $`ee_5/\sqrt{2\pi R}`$.

The goal of this paper is to investigate stability of the ground state of the model. Therefore first we have to determine the tree level potential, the next step will be to calculate the effective potential at the 1-loop level. Expanding in KK modes and integrating over $`y`$ yields the following 4D potential:

$`V^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[m_n^2+\mu ^2\right]\varphi _n^{}\varphi _n+\mu ^2\varphi _0^{}\varphi _0+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m,k,l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}B_{nmkl}\varphi _n^{}\varphi _m\varphi _k^{}\varphi _l+`$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m,k,l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}D_{nmkl}A_{5n}A_{5m}\varphi _k^{}\varphi _l{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m,k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_{nmk}m_nA_{5m}(\varphi _n^{}\varphi _k\varphi _k^{}\varphi _n)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(m_nA_{5n}+ve\chi _n\right)^2,`$
where $`\lambda \lambda _5/(2\pi R)`$ and the coefficients $`B_{nmkl},D_{nmkl}`$ and $`C_{nmk}`$ are defined in the Appendix A.

In spite of the fact that the potential looks complicated, it is easy to see that for $`\lambda _5>0`$ the potential is positive definite in the limit of $`|\varphi _n|^2\mathrm{}`$ and therefore the ground state is stable. The 4D potential emerges from the 5D potential, the Higgs-boson kinetic term and the gauge fixing term:

$$V^{(4)}=_o^{2\pi R}𝑑y\left[V_5(x,y)+(D_5\varphi )^{}(D_5\varphi )+\frac{\xi }{2}\left(_5A_5+e_5\frac{v\chi }{\sqrt{2\pi R}}\right)^2\right],$$
(40)
where $`D_5\varphi `$ is the fifth component of the covariant derivative of the Higgs field and the last term emerges from the gauge fixing term. So, it is clear that the 4D potential must be positive definite as it is an integral over a positive function. In the following we will investigate 1-loop corrections to the effective potential.

We will consider the case $`\mu ^2<0`$, then it is easy to see that if $`\mu ^21/R^2`$ then only the zero mode $`h_0(x)`$ can develop a non-zero vacuum expectation value, at the tree level we get:

$$h_0(x)v=\sqrt{\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda }}.$$
(41)
We will calculate the effective potential in the direction of the tree level vacuum: $`\chi _0=h_n=\chi _n=A_{5n}=0`$ and $`h_00`$. The Landau gauge defined here by $`\xi =0`$ will be adopted hereafter.

We will expand the 4D Lagrangian around $`\chi _0=h_n=\chi _n=A_{5n}=0`$ and $`h_0h_0+\phi `$, where $`\phi `$ is the classical constant (in 4D) external background field for the calculation of one-loop Green’s functions that are necessary for the effective potential. Then in the Landau gauge the following mass terms are obtained:

$`m_{h_0}^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{h_0^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2+3\lambda \phi ^2`$
$`m_{\chi _0}^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{\chi _0^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2+\lambda \phi ^2`$
$`m_{h_nh_m}^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{h_nh_m}}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_n^2+\mu ^2+3\lambda \phi ^2)\delta _{nm}m_{h_n}^2\delta _{nm}`$
$`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{^2V}{A_{5n}A_{5m}}& \frac{^2V}{A_{5n}\chi _m}\\ \frac{^2V}{A_{5m}\chi _n}& \frac{^2V}{\chi _n\chi _m}\end{array}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}e^2\phi ^2& em_n\phi \\ em_n\phi & (m_n^2+\mu ^2+\lambda \phi ^2)\end{array}\right]\delta _{nm}`$ (46)
In the following part of this section we will show separate contributions to the effective potential calculated in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme in dimensional regularization.

Let us start with the $`(A_{5n},\chi _m)`$ system. The mixing in the mass matrix for $`A_{5n}`$ and $`\chi _m`$ causes some technical difficulties that are described in Appendix B. The final result for the $`(A_{5n},\chi _m)`$ system is the following:

$$V_{eff}^{(A_5,\chi )}=\frac{1}{2}\left(V_{mix}^{(\mathrm{})}+V_{mix}^{(R)}V_{0finite}^{(A_0)}V_{0finite}^{(\chi _0)}\right),$$
(47)
where $`V_{mix}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ and $`V_{mix}^{(R)}`$ are the analogs of the “divergent” and finite contributions to the effective potential (20) in the case of mixing:

$`V_{mix}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y^{1/2}(y^21)x^5}{2^{12}\sqrt{2}\pi ^5R^4}}\mathrm{F}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}};2;1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2}})`$ (48)
$`V_{mix}^{(R)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y^{3/2}(1+y)^{1/4}x^{7/2}}{2^9\pi ^5\sqrt{\pi }R^4}}\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{3}{2}}\left(e^{x\sqrt{1+y}}\right),`$ (49)
where $`\mathrm{F}(a,b;c;z)`$ is the hypergeometric function,

$$x2\pi R\sqrt{a}\mathrm{and}y\frac{2\sqrt{b}}{a}$$
(50)
for $`a`$ and $`b`$ defined in eq.(B.7). $`V_{0finite}^{(A_0)}`$ and $`V_{0finite}^{(\chi _0)}`$ are the finite parts of scalar contributions (see eq.(20)) to the effective potential calculated for the zero mode vector boson mass ($`m_{A_0}^2=e^2\phi ^2`$) and Goldstone boson ($`m_{\chi _0}^2=\mu ^2+\lambda \phi ^2`$), respectively.

All neutral scalar modes contribute to the effective potential as follows:

$$V_{eff}^{(s)}(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}\left[V^{(\mathrm{})}(m_{h_0}^2)+V^{(R)}(m_{h_0}^2)+V_{0finite}(m_{h_0}^2)\right]+V_{0finite}(m_{\chi _0}^2)+V_{eff}^{(A_5,\chi )}(\phi ).$$
(51)
For the vector boson contribution we get

$$V_{eff}^{(v)}(\phi )=\frac{3}{2}\left[V^{(\mathrm{})}(m_{A_0}^2)+V^{(R)}(m_{A_0}^2)+V_{0finite}^v(m_{A_0}^2)\right],$$
(52)
where the zero-mode vector contribution reads

$$V_0^v(m^2)=\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}m^4(\phi )\left\{C_{UV}+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2(\phi )}{\kappa ^2}\right)\frac{5}{6}\right\},$$
(53)
and $`m_{A_n}^2=m_n^2+e^2\phi ^2`$.

After KK expansion and integration over $`y`$ the 4D fermionic Lagrangian reads (see ref.  for a similar construction):

$$_f^{(4)}=\overline{f_0}(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu m_{f\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}})f_0+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\overline{\xi _n}i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \xi _n\overline{\xi _n}M_n\xi _n\right],$$
(54)
where $`m_{f_0}=g\phi /\sqrt{2}`$, $`gg_5/\sqrt{2\pi R}`$, $`m_n=n/R`$ and

$$f_0=\psi _{R\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}+\lambda _{L\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}\xi _n=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{Rn}+\psi _{Ln}\\ \lambda _{Rn}+\lambda _{Ln}\end{array}\right)M_n=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_n& m_{f_0}\\ m_{f_0}& +m_n\end{array}\right)$$
(55)
After diagonalization the fermionic mass matrix reads:

$$=\pm \left(\begin{array}{cc}(m_n^2+m_{f_0}^2)^{1/2}& 0\\ 0& (m_n^2+m_{f_0}^2)^{1/2}\end{array}\right)$$
(56)
So, we have two fermions degenerate in masses (the minus in front of the upper component mass can be removed through a chiral rotation).

Fermions (no color degrees of freedom included) contribute to the effective potential as follows:

$$V_{eff}^{(f)}(\phi )=4V_{0finite}(m_{f_0}^2)\frac{8}{2}\left[V^{(\mathrm{})}(m_{f_0}^2)+V^{(R)}(m_{f_0}^2)V_{0finite}(m_{f_0}^2)\right],$$
(57)
for $`m_{f_n}^2=m_n^2+m_{f_0}^2`$.

Eventually, the total 1-loop effective potential is given by the following formula:

$$V_{eff}^{1loop}=V_{tree}+V_{eff}^{(s)}+V_{eff}^{(v)}+V_{eff}^{(f)},$$
(58)
where

$$V_{tree}(\phi )=\frac{\mu ^2}{2}\phi ^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}\phi ^4.$$
(59)
## 4 Results

In order to mimic the SM we have adopted the following parameters for the plots: $`e=\sqrt{4\pi /137}`$, $`v=0.246\text{TeV}`$, the fermion zero-mode mass $`m_{f\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}=0.150\text{TeV}`$ and the renormalization scale $`\kappa =0.1\text{TeV}`$. We will adopt the asymptotic formula for $`V_{mix}^{(R)}`$ given in eq.(B.13), however it should be emphasized that it provides an excellent approximation in the whole parameter range that is of interest here.

It is seen from the plots that effects of non-zero KK modes are very dramatic. For instance, for $`m_{h_0}=0.10\text{TeV}`$ and $`R^1=0.3\text{TeV}`$ the instability scale is shifted down from $`4.8\times 10^5\text{TeV}`$ to $`3.6\text{TeV}`$ ! The model is much less stable as a consequence of the presence of the KK modes. Closer inspection shows that the result is triggered by the fermionic contribution to the 4D effective potential and the leading contribution emerges from $`V^{(\mathrm{})}`$. Note that since we wished to construct a model that would posses a zero-mode massive fermion therefore it was necessary to introduce the extra 5D fermion. As a consequence the model contains after reduction to 4D doubly degenerated Dirac fermions for each KK mode what enhances the fermionic contributions and is the source of the extra factor of 2 in front of the second term in eq.(57). If the factor 2 is removed (just to test the effect of fermion doubling) the result changes and for instance for $`m_{h_0}=0.10\text{TeV}`$ and $`R^1=0.3\text{TeV}`$ the instability appears at $`6.5\text{TeV}`$ instead of $`3.6\text{TeV}`$, obviously the model would be more stable. It turns out that for our model (with full spectrum of fermions) the fermionic KK contribution is by factor of $`2.5÷5`$ larger (for $`\phi 0.5÷3.5\text{TeV}`$ at $`m_{h_0}=0.10\text{TeV}`$ and $`R^1=0.3\text{TeV}`$) than the zero-mode contribution. As a consequence the tree level potential bends down more rapidly for much lower field strengths than for the zero mode only.

## 5 Conclusions

We have discussed the effective potential in 4-dimensional models that originate from 5-dimensional ones reduced down to 4 dimensions. The cut-off and the dimensional regularization schemes were discussed and compared. It was shown that the prescriptions are consistent with each other and lead to the same physical consequences.

It turned out that when the number of KK modes included ($`n_{max}`$) varies between 10 and 500, the effective potential calculated within the cut-off regularization accompanied by the on-shell renormalization is never farther than $`5\%`$ away from the potential found in the dimensional regularization with $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$.

In order to take into account non-diagonal mass matrices we have generalized the standard technique for the calculation of KK contributions to the effective potential developed by Delgado, Pomarol and Quirós in ref. . We have constructed a simple U(1) 5-dimensional model containing gauge boson, a complex scalar and two fermions. The model parameters were adjusted, so that the model should mimic 5-dimensional extension of the Standard Model. The one-loop effective potential for the model was calculated adopting the dimensional regularization with the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization. Like in the Standard Model the effective potential turned out to be unbounded from below as a consequence of fermionic contributions. It has been found that the presence of the tower of fermionic KK modes leads to a major modification of the effective potential and in particular could substantially lower the scale of instability. For instance, for $`m_{h_0}=0.10\text{TeV}`$ and $`R^1=0.3\text{TeV}`$ the instability scale is shifted down from the Standard Model value $`4.8\times 10^5\text{TeV}`$ to $`3.6\text{TeV}`$ ! The model is much less stable as a consequence of the presence of the KK modes. The same qualitative behavior of the effective potential is expected for the true 5-dimensional extension of the Standard Model. The order of magnitude for the instability scale should not differ very much from the results presented here, however for a definite prediction for the instability scale as a function of the Higgs-boson mass a dedicated study is necessary.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are very grateful to José Wudka for his collaboration in early stages of this work. They also thank Adam Falkowski, Zygmunt Lalak, Krzysztof Meissner, Marek Olechowski and Jacek Pawelczyk for useful discussions. P.B. was supported by the EU fifth Framework Network “Supersymmetry and the Early Universe” (HPRN-CT-2000-00152). B.G. was supported in part by the State Committee for Scientific Research under grant 5 P03B 121 20 (Poland).

APPENDIX A

The integrals used in the text:

$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}\mathrm{cos}(m_ny)𝑑y=(2\pi R)\delta _{n,0}`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}\mathrm{sin}(m_ny)𝑑y=0`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}\mathrm{cos}(m_ny)\mathrm{cos}(m_my)𝑑y=\{\begin{array}{ccc}(\pi R)\delta _{n,m}\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & n,m0\hfill \\ 2\pi R\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & n,m=0\hfill \end{array}`$ (A.3)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}\mathrm{sin}(m_ny)\mathrm{sin}(m_my)𝑑y=\{\begin{array}{ccc}(\pi R)\delta _{n,m}\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & n,m0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & n,m=0\hfill \end{array}`$ (A.6)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}\mathrm{sin}(m_ny)\mathrm{cos}(m_my)𝑑y=0`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}\mathrm{cos}(m_ny)\mathrm{cos}(m_my)\mathrm{cos}(m_ly)𝑑y={\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}A_{nml}`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}\mathrm{sin}(m_ny)\mathrm{sin}(m_my)\mathrm{cos}(m_ly)𝑑y={\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}C_{nml}`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}\mathrm{cos}(m_ny)\mathrm{cos}(m_my)\mathrm{sin}(m_ly)𝑑y=0`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}\mathrm{cos}(m_ny)\mathrm{cos}(m_my)\mathrm{cos}(m_ky)\mathrm{cos}(m_ly)𝑑y={\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{4}}B_{nmkl}`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}\mathrm{sin}(m_ny)\mathrm{sin}(m_my)\mathrm{cos}(m_ky)\mathrm{cos}(m_ly)𝑑y={\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{4}}D_{nmkl}`$ (A.7)
where

$`A_{nml}`$ $``$ $`\delta _{l,n+m}+\delta _{l,nm}+\delta _{l,n+m}+\delta _{l,nm}`$
$`C_{nml}`$ $``$ $`\delta _{l,n+m}+\delta _{l,nm}+\delta _{l,n+m}\delta _{l,nm}`$
$`B_{nmkl}`$ $``$ $`\delta _{l,nm+k}+\delta _{l,n+mk}+\delta _{l,n+m+k}+\delta _{l,nmk}`$
$`+\delta _{l,nm+k}+\delta _{l,n+mk}+\delta _{l,n+m+k}+\delta _{l,nmk}`$
$`D_{nmkl}`$ $``$ $`\delta _{l,n+mk}+\delta _{l,n+m+k}+\delta _{l,nm+k}+\delta _{l,nmk}`$ (A.8)
$`\delta _{l,n+mk}\delta _{l,n+m+k}\delta _{l,nm+k}\delta _{l,nmk}`$
APPENDIX B

Since in the case of mixing between KK modes the standard technique developed in ref. for a calculation of the effective potential can not be applied directly, we present here some details of the derivation that lead to the result shown in eq.(47). In a case of non-diagonal mass matrix $`M^2`$ we have to consider the following form of the effective potential in Euclidean space:

$$V(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}Tr\left\{\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left[l^2(p^2+M^2)\right]\right\},$$
(B.1)
where $`M`$ is in general non-diagonal mass matrix for KK modes and we have restricted ourself to the no-shift case: $`\omega =0`$. For the $`(A_{5n},\chi _n)`$ system we have

$$M^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^2\phi ^2& e\phi m_n\\ e\phi m_n& \mu ^2+\lambda \phi ^2+m_n^2\end{array}\right).$$
(B.2)
Going to diagonal form of $`M^2`$ it is easy to see that

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{ln}[l^2(p^2+M^2)]\right\}=\mathrm{ln}[l^4(p^4+p^2\mathrm{Tr}M^2+\mathrm{Det}M^2)].$$
(B.3)
Since

$$\mathrm{Tr}M^2=e^2\phi ^2+\mu ^2+\lambda \phi ^2+m_n^2\mathrm{and}\mathrm{Det}M^2=e^2\phi ^2(\mu ^2+\lambda \phi ^2)$$
(B.4)
we obtain eventually

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{ln}[l^2(p^2+M^2)]\right\}=\mathrm{ln}\left[l^2E^2+n^2\pi ^2\right],$$
(B.5)
where irrelevant constant terms have been dropped and

$$E^2=p^2+a+\frac{b}{p^2},$$
(B.6)
with

$$a=e^2\phi ^2+\mu ^2+\lambda \phi ^2\mathrm{and}b=e^2\phi ^2(\mu ^2+\lambda \phi ^2)$$
(B.7)
Following the method adopted for diagonal mass matrices, one needs to differentiate $`W\frac{1}{2}_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}\left[(lE)^2+n^2\pi ^2\right]`$ with respect to $`E`$, then trade the summation for a contour integral and eventually integrate over $`E`$. The result is

$$W=lE+\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^{2lE}\right)+\mathrm{constant}$$
(B.8)
The term that is ultraviolet divergent for a cut-off regularization emerges from the integral of the first term in eq.(B.8):

$$V_{mix}^{(\mathrm{})}=l\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\sqrt{p^2+a+\frac{b}{p^2}}$$
(B.9)
The compactification radius dependent contribution consists of the integral of the second term in eq.(B.8):

$$V_{mix}^{(R)}=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^{2lE}\right)$$
(B.10)
The following formula will be adopted

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^{\alpha 1}dx}{(ax^2+2bx+c)^\rho }=a^{\frac{\alpha }{2}}c^{\frac{\alpha }{2}\rho }\mathrm{B}(\alpha ,2\rho \alpha )\mathrm{F}(\frac{\alpha }{2},\rho \frac{\alpha }{2};\rho +\frac{1}{2};1\frac{b^2}{ac}),$$
(B.11)
where $`\mathrm{B}(x,y)`$ and $`\mathrm{F}(a,b;c;z)`$ are the Euler beta function and hypergeometric function, respectively. Using the above result one can show that for the dimensional regularization the integral in eq.(B.9) is finite in the limit $`n4`$ and the corresponding potential reads151515It could be verified that the following result reproduce the formula (2.3) in the limit $`b0`$.:

$$V_{mix}^{(\mathrm{})}=\frac{y^{1/2}(y^21)x^5}{2^{12}\sqrt{2}\pi ^5R^4}\mathrm{F}(\frac{1}{4},\frac{7}{4};2;1\frac{1}{y^2}),$$
(B.12)
where $`x`$ and $`y`$ are defined in the main text, see eq.(50).

The integral $`V_{mix}^{(R)}=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^{2lE}\right)`$ is more difficult to perform, so we will adopt an asymptotic expansion in the limit $`2\pi R\phi \mathrm{}`$ that is an excellent approximation in the region of our interest161616Since we are interested in the stability of the vacuum, therefore it is enough to know the shape of the effective potential for $`\phi \mathrm{few}\text{TeV}`$, what turns out to be sufficient for the application of the asymptotic expansion of the integral.. The result reads

$$V_{mix}^{(R)}\frac{y^{3/2}(1+y)^{1/4}x^{7/2}}{2^9\pi ^5\sqrt{\pi }R^4}\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{3}{2}}\left(e^{x\sqrt{1+y}}\right).$$
(B.13)
Eventually, the contribution to the effective potential from the $`(A_{5n},\chi _n)`$ system is the following:

$$V_{eff}^{(A_5,\chi )}=\frac{1}{2}\left(V_{mix}^{(\mathrm{})}+V_{mix}^{(R)}V_{0finite}^{(A_0)}V_{0finite}^{(\chi _0)}\right),$$
(B.14)
where $`V_{0finite}^{(A_0)}`$ and $`V_{0finite}^{(\chi _0)}`$ are the finite parts of scalar contributions (see eq.(20)) to the effective potential calculated for the zero mode vector boson mass ($`m_{A_0}^2=e^2\phi ^2`$) and Goldstone boson ($`m_{\chi _0}^2=\mu ^2+\lambda \phi ^2`$), respectively.