text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Although the Standard Model (SM) of electroweak interactions describes successfully almost all existing experimental data, the model suffers from many theoretical drawbacks. One of these is the hierarchy problem: namely, the SM cannot consistently accommodate the weak energy scale $`𝒪(1\text{TeV})`$ and a much higher scale such as the Planck mass scale $`𝒪(10^{18}\text{GeV})`$. Therefore, it is widely accepted that the SM is only an effective low-energy theory embedded in some more fundamental high-scale theory that presumably could contain gravitational interactions. Recently many models that incorporate gravity have been proposed in the context of higher dimensional space-time. These models have received tremendous attention since they might provide a solution to the hierarchy problem. One of the most attractive attempts has been formulated by Randall and Sundrum  who postulated a 5D universe with two 4D surfaces (“3-branes”) with the following action:

$$S=d^4x_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑y\left\{\sqrt{|g|}\left(\frac{R}{2\kappa ^2}+\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+\underset{k=1,2}{}\sqrt{|g_k|}\mathrm{\Lambda }_k\delta (yy_k)\right\},$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar, $`\kappa ^2=8\pi G_N^{(5)}`$ with $`G_N^{(5)}`$ the Newton constant in 5D and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{hid}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{vis}`$ are the cosmological constants in the bulk, on the hidden and visible branes, respectively. In the above, $`g_{ij}`$ ($`i,j=0,1,2,3,4`$) is the bulk metric and $`(g_1)_{\mu \nu }(g_{hid})_{\mu \nu }(x)g_{\mu \nu }(x,y=y_10)`$ and $`(g_2)_{\mu \nu }(g_{vis})_{\mu \nu }(x)g_{\mu \nu }(x,y=y_21/2)`$ ($`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3`$) are the induced metrics on the branes.

It turns out that if the bulk and brane cosmological constants are related by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{6m_0^2}{\kappa ^2},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{hid}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{vis}=\frac{6m_0}{\kappa ^2}$$
(2)
and if periodic boundary conditions ($`yy+1`$) with identification of $`(x,y)`$ and $`(x,y)`$ are imposed, then the following metric is a solution of the 5D Einstein equations:

$$ds^2=e^{2\sigma (y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu b_0^2dy^2,$$
(3)
where $`\sigma (y)=m_0b_0\left[y(2\theta (y)1)2(y1/2)\theta (y1/2)\right]`$; $`b_0`$ is a constant parameter that is not determined by the equations of motion.

Within the Randall-Sundrum (RS) model all the SM particles as well as the non-gravitational forces are assumed to be present on one of the 3-branes, the “visible brane”. Gravity lives on the visible brane, on the second brane (the “hidden brane”) and in the bulk. All mass scales in the 5D theory are of the order of the Planck mass. By placing the SM fields on the visible brane, the initial 5D electroweak mass scale $`𝒪(M_{Pl})`$ is rescaled by an exponential suppression factor (the “warp factor”) $`\gamma e^{m_0b_0/2}`$, down to the weak scale $`𝒪(1\text{TeV})`$ without any severe fine tuning. To achieve the necessary suppression, one needs $`m_0b_0/237`$. This is a great improvement compared to the original problem of accommodating both the weak and the Planck scale within a single theory.

## 2 The radion effective potential

A drawback of the RS model is the presence of a massless degree of freedom called the radion. There have been several attempts (see Refs. ) in the literature to generate the radion mass by introducing a bulk scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that would induce an appropriate radion potential. Here we will derive the general form of the potential within a class of models containing the bulk scalar interacting with gravity in the following manner:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}}dy\{\sqrt{|g|}[{\displaystyle \frac{R}{2\kappa ^2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha Rf(\mathrm{\Phi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,i}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,j}V(\mathrm{\Phi })]`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2}{}}\sqrt{|g_k|}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_k+V_k(\mathrm{\Phi })]\delta (yy_k)\},`$
where we have introduced the bulk potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and the brane potentials $`V_1(\mathrm{\Phi })V_{hid}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and $`V_2(\mathrm{\Phi })V_{vis}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. In addition to the standard scalar kinetic-energy term, we have allowed for a general coupling of the bulk scalar to gravity through the $`\alpha Rf(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ interaction term. Since we would like to preserve the explanation of the hierarchy proposed by Randall and Sundrum, we will also require that the RS metric (3) remain an exact solution111One can, of course, consider slight modifications of the RS metric that would also solve the hierarchy problem in a similar manner. However, in this paper we would like to discuss a scenario with exactly the same metric as in the original RS model. of the Einstein equations even in the presence of the bulk scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Therefore, it is useful to separate out in the action (4) both the bulk ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and brane ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{hid}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{vis}`$) cosmological constants that satisfy the RS conditions, Eq. (2).

In order to identify the radion, it is sufficient to consider scalar excitations of the metric around the background RS solutions. Hereafter, we will adopt the following parameterization (see Refs. ) of the metric fluctuations:

$$ds^2=e^{2\sigma (y)2b(x)e^{2\sigma (y)}}(\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }(x,y))dx^\mu dx^\nu b_0^2\left(1+2b(x)e^{2\sigma (y)}\right)^2dy^2,$$
(5)
where $`h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$ and $`b(x)`$ are related to the graviton222In the following we will not discuss interactions with gravitons as they will not influence the potential for scalar degrees of freedom. and the radion, respectively. Then from $`\sqrt{|g|}R/(2\kappa ^2)`$ in the action (4) one obtains \[after expanding in powers of $`b(x)`$\] the kinetic term for the radion:333Hereafter, the flat metric $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ will be assumed whenever repeated indices are summed.

$$S=\frac{6}{\kappa ^2m_0}\left(e^{m_0b_0}1\right)d^4x\frac{1}{2}(_\mu b)(^\mu b)+\mathrm{}$$
(6)
It is easy to verify that if interactions of the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are switched off, then there is no potential for $`b(x)`$ and consequently the radion would be massless.

The bulk scalar has been introduced here in order to generate a non-trivial potential for the radion. However, in general the presence of the scalar leads to a non-trivial interaction potential between the radion and the scalar in addition to the appearance of a radion potential. Therefore, the strategy that we will follow here will be to determine the background scalar configuration $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y)`$ such that the RS background metric is preserved and then to expand the action (4) around it. First, one has to solve the Einstein equations together with the equation of motion for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Let us start with the Einstein equations, keeping in mind that we would like to preserve the RS metric as a vacuum solution. We write

$$G_{ij}=\kappa ^2\left[T_{ij}^{(RS)}+(\delta T)_{ij}(\mathrm{\Phi })\right],$$
(7)
where $`G_{ij}`$ is the Einstein tensor, $`T_{ij}^{(RS)}`$ denotes the RS contribution to the energy-momentum tensor and $`(\delta T)_{ij}`$ contains all new contributions emerging from interactions of the scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It is useful to first calculate all the extra (compared to the pure RS model) contributions to the energy-momentum tensor. It is easy to show that:

$$(\delta T)_{ij}=T_{ij}^{(\mathrm{\Phi })}+2\alpha \{D_{ij}[f(\mathrm{\Phi })]G_{ij}f(\mathrm{\Phi })\}+\frac{1}{b_0}\underset{k=1,2}{}V_k(\mathrm{\Phi })(g_k)_{\mu \nu }\delta _i^\mu \delta _j^\nu \delta (yy_k),$$
(8)
where

$`T_{ij}^{(\mathrm{\Phi })}`$ $``$ $`_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }g_{ij}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{kl}_k\mathrm{\Phi }_l\mathrm{\Phi }V(\mathrm{\Phi })\right]`$ (9)
$`D_{ij}[X]`$ $``$ $`_i_jXg_{ij}g^{kl}_k_lX.`$ (10)
For the RS background metric we obtain:

$$G_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}3b_0^2e^{2\sigma }(2\sigma ^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }})\eta _{\mu \nu }& & 0\\ 0& & 6\sigma ^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\end{array}\right)$$
(11)
and

$$D_{ij}[f(\mathrm{\Phi })]=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}b_0^2e^{2\sigma }(3\sigma ^{^{}}f(\mathrm{\Phi })^{^{}}+f(\mathrm{\Phi })^{^{\prime \prime }})\eta _{\mu \nu }& & 0\\ 0& & 4\sigma ^{^{}}f(\mathrm{\Phi })^{^{}}\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
where here, and in what follows, the prime denotes differentiation with respect to the 5th coordinate, $`y`$.

Since we demand that the RS metric be preserved even when the scalar is present (no back-reaction from the scalar), we have to require that the extra contributions to the energy momentum tensor (calculated using the RS metric) vanish:

$$(\delta T)_{ij}(\mathrm{\Phi })=0.$$
(13)
Since we want to find a background solution for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that satisfies 4D Lorentz invariance, we will assume that the solution is only a function of the extra dimension coordinate, $`y`$. The $`(\mu ,\nu )`$ and $`(5,5)`$ components of Eq. (13) read, respectively:

$`(\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}})^2+12\alpha (2\sigma ^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }})f12\alpha \sigma ^{^{}}f^{^{}}+4\alpha f^{^{\prime \prime }}+`$
$`2b_0^2\left[V(\mathrm{\Phi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2}{}}V_k(\mathrm{\Phi })\delta (yy_k)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (14)
$`(\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}})^224\alpha \sigma ^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}f+16\alpha \sigma ^{^{}}f^{^{}}2b_0^2V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (15)
Note that since $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y)`$ should be a continuous function, the above equations imply $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}(y)=0`$ and $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })=V_{vis}(\mathrm{\Phi })=V_{hid}(\mathrm{\Phi })=0`$ for $`\alpha =0`$. Therefore, introduction of the extra coupling $`\alpha Rf(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is essential in order to obtain a no-back reaction solution, $`(\delta T)_{ij}(\mathrm{\Phi })=0`$.

In addition, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ must satisfy the following equation of motion:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{\prime \prime }}+4\sigma ^{^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}+4\alpha (5\sigma ^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}2\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }})\frac{df}{d\mathrm{\Phi }}+b_0^2\left[\frac{dV}{d\mathrm{\Phi }}+\frac{1}{b_0}\underset{k=1,2}{}\frac{dV_k}{d\mathrm{\Phi }}\delta (yy_k)\right]=0,$$
(16)
where the RS metric was used.444Both the Einstein equations (13) and the equation of motion (16) constrain the scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. However, it can be verified that the equations are not independent; a certain linear combination of derivatives with respect to $`y`$ of the $`(\mu ,\nu )`$ and $`(5,5)`$ components of Eq. (13) is proportional to Eq. (16). Since we have not specified the potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, we can find a consistent solution both for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the potential. Details of the derivations for $`f(\mathrm{\Phi })=3/32\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ will be presented in Sec. 3. Once the vacuum solution ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$) is determined, we expand the action, Eq. (4), adopting the parameterization of the scalar fluctuations of the metric given in Eq. (5) and the following definition for the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ quantum fluctuation:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)+\varphi (x,y).$$
(17)
Then, in order to determine the effective 4D potential for the scalar degrees of freedom, we collect all non-derivative contributions to the $`d^4x`$ integrand in the action of Eq. (4) containing $`b(x)`$ and $`\varphi (x,y)`$.

In other words, we expand the theory defined by the action (4) around the vacuum solutions for the metric (the RS solution) and the bulk scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ \[the solution of Eqs. (13) and (16)\] in terms of the scalar fluctuation of the metric, $`b(x)`$, and fluctuation of the scalar field, $`\varphi (x,y)`$.

First, let us calculate the Ricci scalar for the metric (5) and collect all the terms containing derivatives with respect the the extra component $`y`$:

$$R=\frac{20}{b_0^2}\sigma ^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}\frac{8}{b_0^2}\frac{\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }}}{1+2be^{2\sigma }}+\mathrm{}$$
(18)
where ellipses contain only $`(x,y)`$-derivatives of the graviton and $`x`$-derivatives of the radion. Since we are going to calculate the potential, derivatives of $`b(x)`$ will be dropped hereafter. As has already been mentioned, we will not consider fluctuations of the $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ part of the metric. Therefore, we will also neglect all terms containing $`h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$.555Adopting the traceless gauge, $`h_\mu ^\mu =0`$, one can eliminate possible mixing between $`b`$ or $`\varphi `$ and $`h_{\mu \nu }`$. Consequently, graviton interactions cannot influence scalar masses. Thus, $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ will be suppressed in the following.

Using the contributions to the Ricci scalar displayed in Eq. (18), one gets the following form of the effective 4D potential from the action (4):

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(b,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}}dye^{4\sigma 4be^{2\sigma }}\times `$ (19)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_0(1+2be^{2\sigma })}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{^{}}+\varphi ^{^{}})^2+2b_0(1+2be^{2\sigma })V(\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\varphi )]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa ^2b_0}}\left[5(1+2be^{2\sigma })\sigma ^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}2\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }}\right]\left[1+2\kappa ^2\alpha f(\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\varphi )\right]+`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }b_0(1+2be^{2\sigma })+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2}{}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_k+V_k(\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\varphi )]\delta (yy_k)\}`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)`$ denotes the vacuum solution (that preserves the RS metric) for the scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is determined as a solution of the equations of motion for the RS background metric. As a result, it does not contain any dependence on the radion field $`b(x)`$. It is easy to verify that contributions from the pure RS model to $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(b,\varphi )`$ vanish when the relations (2) are satisfied: a non-trivial potential requires an extension of the minimal RS model.

Next, it is easy to show from Eq. (8) that if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is independent of $`x`$ then the following identity holds:

$`(\delta T)_\mu ^\mu (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{b_0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_0}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}})^2+2b_0V(\mathrm{\Phi })\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{24\alpha }{b_0^2}}\left(2\sigma ^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }}\right)f(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (20)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8\alpha }{b_0^2}}\left(3\sigma ^{^{}}f(\mathrm{\Phi })^{^{}}+f(\mathrm{\Phi })^{^{\prime \prime }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{b_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2}{}}V_k(\mathrm{\Phi })\delta (yy_k).`$
Multiplying the above equation by $`\mathrm{exp}\{4\sigma \}(b_0/4)`$, integrating the $`(3\sigma ^{}f+f^{\prime \prime })`$ term by parts and using the RS relations, Eq. (2), one obtains the following simple relation between $`(\delta T)_\mu ^\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$ and the minimum of the effective potential of Eq. (19) at its \[$`b(x)=0`$, $`\varphi (x,y)=0`$\] minimum:

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}(0,0)=\frac{b_0}{4}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑ye^{4\sigma }(\delta T)_\mu ^\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }_0).$$
(21)
Note that in Eq. (21) we employ the trace from Eq. (20) calculated for the background solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Since the no-back-reaction requirement, Eq. (13), implies $`(\delta T)_\mu ^\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }_0)=0`$, the relation (21) shows that the effective potential must vanish at the minimum

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}(0,0)=0.$$
(22)
It is straightforward to verify that linear terms in $`b(x)`$ and $`\varphi (x,y)`$ disappear by virtue of Eq. (13) and Eq. (16), respectively.

In order to determine scalar masses one has to expand the action (4) up to terms quadratic in $`b`$ and $`\varphi `$. First, let us define the K-K modes of the scalar fluctuations:

$$\varphi (x,y)=\underset{n}{}\phi _n(x)\frac{J_n(y)}{b_0^{1/2}},$$
(23)
with orthonormal functions $`J_n(y)`$:

$$_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑ye^{2\sigma (y)}J_n(y)J_m(y)=\delta _{nm}.$$
(24)
The resulting mass terms are the following:

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}r& \phi _m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_r^2\hfill & (M_{r\phi }^2)_n\hfill \\ (M_{r\phi }^2)_m\hfill & (M_\phi ^2)_{mn}\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}r\\ \phi _n\end{array}\right),$$
(25)
where $`r`$ is the canonically normalized radion \[see Eq. (6)\]:

$$r(x)=\left(\frac{6}{\kappa ^2m_0}\right)^{1/2}e^{m_0b_0/2}b(x)$$
(26)
Inputing the equation of motion (16), the elements of the mass matrix read:

$`M_r^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\kappa ^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_0}{b_0}}e^{m_0b_0}{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{^{}})^2𝑑y`$ (27)
$`(M_{r\phi }^2)_n`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\kappa ^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_0}{b_0}}e^{m_0b_0}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_0}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}}e^{2\sigma (y)}J_n(y)\times `$ (28)
$`\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{^{\prime \prime }}+2\sigma ^{^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{^{}}+20\alpha \sigma ^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{\displaystyle \frac{df}{d\mathrm{\Phi }}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)+b_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{d\mathrm{\Phi }}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\right]`$
$`(M_\phi ^2)_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_0^2}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}}e^{4\sigma (y)}\{J_n(y)J_m(y)\times `$ (29)
$`\left[4\alpha (5\sigma ^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}2\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }}){\displaystyle \frac{d^2f}{d\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}+b_0^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2V}{d\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2V_k}{d\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}\delta (yy_k)\right)\right]+`$
$`J_n^{^{}}(y)J_m^{^{}}(y)\}.`$
Before we can estimate the size of the elements of the mass matrix, we must discuss first the constraint that is imposed on the model by the requirement of maintaining the standard strength of classical 4D gravity. Adopting the metric defined by Eq. (5), one can calculate the coefficient of the 4D Ricci scalar obtained for $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }`$. In order to reproduce the standard result, the coefficient should be $`M_{Pl}^2/2`$. The resulting constraint is:

$$M_{Pl}^2=\frac{1\gamma ^2}{\kappa ^2m_0}+2\alpha b_0_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑ye^{2\sigma }f(\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)),$$
(30)
where $`M_{Pl}2\times 10^{18}\text{GeV}`$ is the reduced Planck mass and $`\gamma =\mathrm{exp}(m_0b_0/2)`$. In order to solve the hierarchy problem, one needs $`m_0b_0/237`$. Therefore, terms of order $`\gamma ^2`$ can be safely neglected in Eq. (30). It is clear that the most natural scenario666Of course, an appropriate cancellation between contributions coming from parameters that differ even by many orders of magnitude is in principle also possible. However, since we would like to preserve the solution of the hierarchy problem proposed by Randall and Sundrum, we should assume that all the mass parameters in the fundamental 5D theory are of the same order. Then, the only necessary fine tuning is to keep $`m_0b_0/237`$. emerges when all the mass parameters of the 5D theory are of the order of $`M_{Pl}`$. In this case, the elements of the scalar mass matrix defined by Eq. (25) are of the following order of magnitude:

$$M_{Pl}^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}a\gamma ^2& b^{1/2}\gamma \\ b^{1/2}\gamma & 1\end{array}\right),$$
(31)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are calculable coefficients of the order of $`1`$. It is clear that for $`m_0b_0/237`$ the lowest scalar mass is of order:

$$\frac{\gamma M_{Pl}(ab)^{1/2}}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{246\text{GeV}}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(32)
There are two essential conclusions. First, we see that the lowest scalar mass receives the standard suppression from the warp factor $`\gamma =\mathrm{exp}(m_0b_0/2)`$ that is necessary for the solution of the hierarchy problem. As a result, the mass expected in the presence of a bulk scalar $`Rf(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ interaction is of the order of the electroweak scale. Second, it is clear that in order to find precise values for scalar masses for any particular choice of the interaction function $`f(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, one has to take into account the mixing between the radion and the Kaluza-Klein modes of the bulk scalar fluctuation. To fully explore the phenomenology of the theory, it would be necessary to calculate all the entries of the mass matrix; however, this is beyond the scope of this paper.

Finally, we close this section by reiterating the fact that if there is no $`Rf(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ interaction, i.e. if $`\alpha =0`$, then necessarily $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{^{}}(y)=0`$ and $`V(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)=V_{vis}(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)=V_{hid}(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)=0`$, which in turn would lead to a vanishing mass matrix.

## 3 The $`𝑹𝚽^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ interaction

In this section, we will illustrate the general discussion from Section 2, choosing a specific form of the interaction between the bulk scalar and gravity:

$$f(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{3}{32}\mathrm{\Phi }^2.$$
(33)
The function $`f(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ has been normalized such that $`\alpha =1`$ corresponds to a 5D conformally invariant interaction. This coupling was discussed in various contexts by many authors in the past, see e.g. Ref. .

In this case, the conditions for $`(\delta T)_{ij}(\mathrm{\Phi })=0`$, Eq. (13), as written out in Eqs. (14) and (15), read:

$`3\sigma ^{^{}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^{^{}}+(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^{^{\prime \prime }}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3\alpha }}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}})^2+3(2\sigma ^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }})\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{16b_0^2}{3\alpha }}\left[V(\mathrm{\Phi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2}{}}V_k(\mathrm{\Phi })\delta (yy_k)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$ (34)
$`\sigma ^{^{}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^{^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\alpha }}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{4b_0^2}{3\alpha }}V(\mathrm{\Phi }){\displaystyle \frac{3\sigma ^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (35)
Eliminating $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ from Eqs. (34,35), one obtains the following equation for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$$\sigma ^{^{}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^{^{}}+(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^{^{\prime \prime }}+\frac{16}{3\alpha }(\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}})^23\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{16b_0}{3\alpha }\underset{k=1,2}{}V_k(\mathrm{\Phi })\delta (yy_k)=0.$$
(36)
Away from the branes, we find the solution:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)=d\left[1ce^{\sigma (y)}\right]^{\frac{1}{\beta }},$$
(37)
where $`c`$, $`d`$ are integration constants and $`\beta 2+8/(3\alpha )`$ is required for consistency. If $`1/\beta `$ is not an integer, we must also demand that $`1ce^{\sigma (y)}>0`$ in order that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)`$ be well-defined. Recalling that $`\sigma ^{\prime \prime }=2m_0b_0\left[\delta (y)\delta (y1/2)\right]`$, and noting that $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^{\prime \prime }`$ will contain a term proportional to $`\sigma ^{\prime \prime }`$, the conditions that the coefficients of the $`\delta `$-functions in Eq. (36) vanish reduce to:

$`m_0d^2g(c)+\beta (\beta 2)V_{hid}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (38)
$`m_0d^2g(c\gamma )\beta (\beta 2)V_{vis}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (39)
where $`\gamma \mathrm{exp}(m_0b_0/2)`$, $`g(x)(1x)^{\frac{2}{\beta }1}\left[x(2+3\beta )3\beta \right]`$, $`V_{hid}(0)V_{hid}[\mathrm{\Phi }_0(0)]`$ and $`V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)V_{vis}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_0\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]`$, and we have introduced the notation $`V_{vis}=V_2`$ and $`V_{hid}=V_1`$.

Insertion of the solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)`$ into, for example, Eq. (35) fixes the form of the bulk potential:

$$V(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{3}{\beta 2}m_0^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\left\{\frac{4}{3\beta }\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{d}\right)^\beta 1\right]+\frac{\beta 2}{6\beta ^2}\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{d}\right)^\beta 1\right]^21\right\}.$$
(40)
In addition, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ must satisfy its equation of motion as obtained from Eq. (16) for the form Eq. (33):

$$4\sigma ^{^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{\prime \prime }}+\frac{3\alpha }{4}(5\sigma ^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}2\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }})\mathrm{\Phi }+b_0^2\left[\frac{dV}{d\mathrm{\Phi }}+\frac{1}{b_0}\underset{k=1,2}{}\frac{dV_k(\mathrm{\Phi })}{d\mathrm{\Phi }}\delta (yy_k)\right]=0.$$
(41)
It is easily verified that the bulk form for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)`$, Eq. (36), also satisfies the equation of motion in the bulk, Eq. (41). However, cancellation of the $`\delta (y)`$ and $`\delta (y1/2)`$ brane delta function pieces yields matching conditions that are different from Eqs. (38,39). For consistency of Eq. (41) we require:

$`2m_0dh(c)+\beta (\beta 2)V_{hid}^{^{}}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (42)
$`2m_0dh(c\gamma )\beta (\beta 2)V_{vis}^{^{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (43)
where $`h(x)(1x)^{\frac{1}{\beta }1}[x(2+3\beta )4\beta ]`$, $`V_{hid}^{^{}}(0)dV_{hid}/d\mathrm{\Phi }|_{\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(0)}`$ and $`V_{vis}^{^{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)dV_{vis}/d\mathrm{\Phi }|_{\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}`$.

Equations (38) and (42) can be solved for the parameter $`c`$ in terms of $`V_{hid}(0)`$ and $`V_{hid}^{^{}}(0)`$. Two solutions are possible for $`c`$, specified by

$$c_i=f_i(\beta ,R_{hid})i=1,2,$$
(44)
where

$$R_{hid}\frac{V_{hid}^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(0)}{4m_0V_{hid}(0)}.$$
(45)
The functions $`f_i`$ denote the two possible solutions of the quadratic equations for $`c`$:

$$f_i(\beta ,R)\frac{B\pm \sqrt{B^24AC}}{2A},$$
(46)
where $`i=1,2`$ corresponds to the $`+`$ and $``$ signs in front of the square root, respectively. The quantities $`A,B,C`$ in the above are given by:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`(2+3\beta )\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{2+3\beta }{R\beta (\beta 2)}}\right]`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`(2+3\beta )\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{R(\beta 2)}}\right]+3\beta `$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`\beta \left[3+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{R(\beta 2)}}\right].`$
Positivity of $`B^24AC`$ leads to the requirement $`1(2+3\beta )/R>0`$.

Once $`c`$ is determined, we can compute $`c\gamma `$ in terms of $`V_{vis}^{^{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ and $`V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ using Eqs. (39) and (43). One finds

$$c_i\gamma _i=f_j(\beta ,R_{vis})\mathrm{for}i=1,2,$$
(47)
where

$$R_{vis}\frac{V_{vis}^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}{4m_0V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}.$$
(48)
and the appropriate branch $`j=1`$ or $`j=2`$ is determined by the need to obtain a very small value for the warp factor $`\gamma _i`$, i.e. $`f_j(\beta ,R_{vis})0`$. The latter is most straightforwardly achieved by requiring $`C_{vis}0`$ and choosing the $`j=1,+`$ ($`j=2,`$) solution for $`f_j(\beta ,R_{vis})`$ \[see Eq. (46)\] for $`B_{vis}>0`$ ($`B_{vis}<0`$), respectively. From Eq. (3), the requirement that $`C_{vis}0`$ is equivalent to

$$\beta \frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{8}{R_{vis}}3\right)\text{or}R_{vis}\frac{8}{3(1\frac{1}{2}\beta )}.$$
(49)
For $`R_{vis}`$ as above,777For $`R_{vis}=\frac{8}{3(1\frac{1}{2}\beta )}r(\beta )`$ exactly, $`\gamma =0`$. As $`R_{vis}`$ changes (for a fixed $`R_{hid}`$) from a value slightly larger than this to a value slightly smaller, $`\gamma `$ will change sign. Whether a positive or negative shift relative to $`r(\beta )`$ is required to give $`\gamma _i>0`$ is determined by the sign of $`c_i`$, which can vary. the positivity of $`\sqrt{B_{vis}^24A_{vis}C_{vis}}`$ is automatic so long as $`B_{vis}`$ is not extremely tiny. For $`R_{vis}`$ as given in Eq. (49), one finds $`B_{vis}3\beta /21`$, so that we must use the $`j=1,+`$ solution for $`\beta >2/3`$ and the $`j=2,`$ solution for $`\beta <2/3`$. For $`\beta =2/3`$, the choice becomes ambiguous.

For convenience, in what follows we denote by $`A_{vis},B_{vis},C_{vis}`$ the values of $`A,B,C`$ for $`R=R_{vis}`$ and by $`A_{hid},B_{hid},C_{hid}`$ the values of $`A,B,C`$ for $`R=R_{hid}`$.

From Eqs. (44) and (47), the warp factor $`\gamma _i`$ (and hence the distance between the branes) for a given solution $`c_i`$ is given by

$$\gamma _ie^{\frac{m_0b_{0}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}}{2}}=\frac{f_j(\beta ,R_{vis})}{f_i(\beta ,R_{hid})}\mathrm{for}i=1,2,$$
(50)
with $`j=1`$ for $`\beta >2/3`$ and $`j=2`$ for $`\beta <2/3`$, as discussed earlier. In practice, we will require that $`\gamma _i=\gamma e^{37}`$ for either choice of $`i`$. Further, one can use (for example) Eq. (42) to determine $`d_i`$:

$$d_i=\frac{\beta (\beta 2)V_{hid}^{^{}}(0)}{2m_0h[f_i(\beta ,R_{hid})]}.$$
(51)
Once $`d_i`$, $`c_i`$ and $`\gamma _i`$ have been fixed as specified above, Eqs. (38) and (39) imply a consistency constraint on the model parameters:

$$\frac{V_{hid}(0)}{V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}=\frac{g[f_i(\beta ,R_{hid})]}{g[f_j(\beta ,R_{vis})]}\frac{g[f_i(\beta ,R_{hid})]}{3\beta },$$
(52)
where $`\gamma _i0`$ has been used to obtain the last approximate form. Using $`\gamma _i0`$, Eqs. (39) and (43) also simplify to

$$V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)3\frac{m_0d_i^2}{\beta 2},V_{vis}^{}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)8\frac{m_0d_i}{\beta 2},$$
(53)
with $`d_i`$ as given in Eq. (51) for solution branch $`i`$. Note that, for a given value of $`\beta `$ and choice of solution branch $`i`$, fixing $`V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ corresponds to fixing the normalization $`d_i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ in terms of $`m_0`$ and that fixing also $`V_{vis}^{}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ then fixes both $`m_0`$ and $`d_i`$.

Finally, it is important to note that the definition of $`R_{hid}`$, Eq. (45), yields the following constraint on the relative signs of $`R_{hid}`$ and $`V_{hid}(0)`$:

$$V_{hid}^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(0)=4m_0R_{hid}V_{hid}(0)>0.$$
(54)
Using Eqs. (53) and (52), the condition Eq. (54) can be converted to a requirement expressed entirely in terms of $`R_{hid}`$ and $`\beta `$ for a given solution branch $`i`$:

$$\frac{R_{hid}g(f_i(\beta ,R_{hid})}{\beta (\beta 2)}<0.$$
(55)
The conformal limit of $`\alpha =1`$ ($`\beta =2/3`$) requires special treatment,888In addition to the general solutions discussed in the main text for this case, there exists a special background solution, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)e^{3/2\sigma (y)}`$, for which there are no matching conditions since the solution satisfies all the necessary equations everywhere, including the boundaries. For this particular special conformally symmetric case, substituting the form of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, as given above, into Eq. (35) leads to a vanishing bulk potential, $`V(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)=0`$. Similarly, Eq. (36) gives $`V_{1,2}(\mathrm{\Phi })=0`$. Because all the potentials are zero, one finds $`M_r^2=0`$. We are only interested in cases for which a non-zero mass is generated for the radion. since for this choice $`A_{hid}=0`$. In this case, $`g(x)=2(1x)^4`$ and $`h(x)=\frac{8}{3}(1x)^{5/2}`$. Eqs. (38) and (42) then yield

$$m_0d^2(1c)^4=\frac{8}{9}V_{hid}(0),m_0d(1c)^{5/2}=\frac{1}{3}V_{hid}^{}(0),$$
(56)
respectively, from which we conclude that $`V_{hid}(0)<0`$ and $`V_{hid}^{}(0)<0`$ are required, which also implies that \[see Eqs. (45) and (54)\] $`R_{hid}<0`$. By combining Eq. (56) and Eq. (45) we find

$$c=1+\frac{2}{R_{hid}}.$$
(57)
Note that $`R_{hid}<2`$ is required for $`0<c<1`$, but that $`c`$ is negative for $`2<R_{hid}<0`$. There is nothing obvious to forbid this latter choice since $`(1ce^{\sigma (y)})`$ will automatically be positive for all $`y`$ if $`c<0`$. In an analogous spirit, utilizing Eqs. (39) and (43), one can show that

$$c\gamma =1\frac{2}{R_{vis}}.$$
(58)
Combining Eqs. (57) and (58), one obtains the following result for the warp factor:

$$\gamma =\frac{R_{hid}}{R_{vis}}\frac{R_{vis}2}{R_{hid}+2}.$$
(59)
In order to have a phenomenologically acceptable small value for the warp factor $`\gamma `$, either $`R_{vis}2`$ or $`R_{hid}0`$ is required. The remaining constraint \[the analog of Eq.(52)\] in this case reads:

$$\frac{V_{hid}(0)}{V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}=\left(\frac{R_{hid}}{R_{vis}}\right)^4.$$
(60)
Combining this equation with the earlier-noted constraint that $`V_{hid}(0)<0`$ results in the requirement that $`V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)>0`$, implying that $`R_{vis}>0`$. Combined with Eq. (59) and the requirement that $`\gamma >0`$, the only allowed choices are:

$$(0<R_{vis}<2\mathrm{and}2<R_{hid}<0)\mathrm{or}(R_{vis}>2\mathrm{and}R_{hid}<2).$$
(61)
(Note that Eq. (49) does not apply for the conformal choice of $`\alpha `$.) For $`R_{vis}2`$, as generally needed for small $`\gamma `$, one finds

$$V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)=\frac{9}{8}m_0d^2,V_{hid}(0)=\frac{9}{144}m_0d^2R_{hid}^4.$$
(62)
In Fig. 1, we display $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)/d`$ as a function of $`y`$ for three cases. In all cases, we have chosen input parameters so that999We reemphasize that $`m_0b_0/2`$ is calculable in terms of the input parameters using Eq. (50) or Eq. (59). $`m_0b_0/237`$ as required for the warp factor $`\gamma =e^{m_0b_0/2}1\text{TeV}/M_{Pl}`$. In the first case, we have taken $`\beta +2/3`$, equivalent to $`R_{vis}=4`$ from Eq. (49), and $`R_{hid}=+1`$. For this choice, $`c0.7835`$. In the second (third) cases, we make the conformal choice of $`\beta =2/3`$, take $`R_{vis}2`$ (for small $`\gamma `$) and employ $`R_{hid}=4`$ ($`R_{hid}=1`$) for which $`c=1/2`$ ($`c=1`$). In the $`\beta =2/3`$ case (which is representative of cases with $`\beta >0`$), we see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)`$ is repulsed from the hidden brane located at $`y=0`$. The second (third) case is representative of a $`\beta =2/3`$ case for which $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)`$ is strongly peaked on (strongly repulsed from) the hidden brane.

A useful cross-check is to adopt the explicit form of the solution (37) to verify that indeed $`V(0,0)`$ vanishes as predicted by Eq. (22). In order to calculate the radion potential at the minimum we use Eq. (35) to eliminate $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ in the general formula (19). The result is the simplified expression

$`V_{eff}(0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10m_0^2b_0}{\beta 2}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}}𝑑ye^{4\sigma }(\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y))^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_0}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}}𝑑ye^{4\sigma }(\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{^{}}(y))^2+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8m_0}{\beta 2}}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_0(0)^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)^2e^{2m_0b_0}\right]+V_{hid}(0)+V_{vis}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)e^{2m_0b_0}`$
Then, inserting the solution Eq. (37) into Eq. (3), one obtains:

$`\beta (\beta 2)V_{eff}(0,0)`$
$`=`$ $`\left[m_0d^2(1c)^{\frac{2}{\beta }1}\left[c(2+3\beta )3\beta \right]+\beta (\beta 2)V_{hid}(0)\right]`$
$`\gamma ^4\left[m_0d^2(1c\gamma )^{\frac{2}{\beta }1}\left[c\gamma (2+3\beta )3\beta \right]\beta (\beta 2)V_{vis}(1/2)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\left[m_0d^2g(c)+\beta (\beta 2)V_{hid}(0)\right]\gamma ^4\left[m_0d^2g(c\gamma )\beta (\beta 2)V_{vis}(1/2)\right].`$
The two bracketed expressions on the right hand side of the above equation vanish by virtue of the fact that they correspond precisely to the expressions appearing in the matching conditions that emerge from the requirement of $`(\delta T)_{\mu \nu }=0`$, Eqs. (38,39).

Finally, if we insert the solution Eq. (37) into the formula for the radion mass, Eq. (27), one obtains \[after employing Eqs. (38) and (39)\] the following result for $`M_r^2`$:

$$M_r^2=\frac{2}{3}\kappa ^2m_0\gamma ^2\left[V_{hid}(0)\frac{c(2\beta )+\beta }{c(2+3\beta )3\beta }V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{c\gamma (2\beta )+\beta }{c\gamma (2+3\beta )3\beta }\right],$$
(65)
where $`c`$ and $`c\gamma `$ are given by Eqs. (44) and (47) or, in the conformal case, Eqs. (57) and (58). Note the presence of the warp factor $`\gamma `$ that reduces the radion mass from the typical 5D scale \[a natural choice for which would be $`𝒪\left(M_{Pl}\right)`$ if $`V_{hid}(0)`$ and $`V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ are $`𝒪\left(M_{Pl}^4\right)`$\] down to the electroweak scale. Of course, Eq. (27) guarantees that $`M_r^20`$ for any given form of $`f(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and any background solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)`$ that is real and fully consistent. The conditions for reality and consistency are: (a) the constraint Eq. (52) or, in the conformal case, Eq. (60) is satisfied; (b) the positivity condition Eq. (54) is satisfied; and (c) $`1c>0`$ when $`1/\beta `$ is not an integer. However, substantial variation of $`M_r^2`$ is possible. In particular, $`M_r^2=0`$ at special points when considered as a function of $`R_{hid}`$ at fixed $`\beta `$. A final form for $`M_r^2`$ can be derived in the $`\gamma 1`$ limit by using Eqs. (52) and (53) in Eq. (65):

$`M_r^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\kappa ^2m_0\gamma ^2V_{vis}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{g(c)}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{c(2\beta )+\beta }{c(2+3\beta )3\beta }}\right]`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\kappa m_0d\gamma )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta 2}}\left[(1c)^{\frac{2}{\beta }1}\left(1c+c{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\right)1\right].`$
This shows the fundamental importance of the scale of $`V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ in determining $`M_r^2`$. Of course, one should continue to keep in mind the relation Eq. (53) between $`V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ and $`m_0d^2`$ as well as the relation Eq. (52) between $`V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ and $`V_{hid}(0)`$.

To illustrate how $`M_r^2`$ depends upon the parameters and how other constraints enter, consider first the conformal case with $`\beta =2/3`$. For $`R_{vis}2`$ (so that $`\gamma 1`$) and using Eqs. (57) and (60), one can rewrite Eq. (66) in terms of $`V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ (which, as noted earlier, fixes the value of $`d`$ in terms of $`m_0`$). The result is:

$$M_r^2=\frac{2}{9}\kappa ^2m_0\gamma ^2V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)K(R_{hid})=\frac{1}{4}(\gamma \kappa m_0d)^2K(R_{hid}),$$
(67)
where

$$K(R_{hid})\frac{3}{16}R_{hid}^4+\frac{1}{2}R_{hid}^3+1>0.$$
(68)
In Fig. 2, we plot $`K(R_{hid})`$ as a function of $`R_{hid}`$. We observe that $`M_r^2>0`$ everywhere except at $`R_{hid}=2`$ (a point where $`c=0`$ is required by Eq. (57) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)`$ becomes trivial). Our two earlier $`\beta =2/3`$ plots of the wave function thus correspond to choices for which $`M_r^2>0`$.

For fixed $`\beta 2/3`$, and $`\gamma 1`$, $`M_r^2`$ is approximately a function of $`R_{hid}`$ only, where $`R_{hid}`$ is to be restricted to those values such that a given solution $`c_1`$ or $`c_2`$ satisfies the other consistency constraints. We explore the behavior of $`M_r^2`$ as follows. First, recall that $`V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$, $`V_{hid}(0)`$, $`R_{vis}`$, $`R_{hid}`$ and $`\beta `$ are the input model parameters. At fixed $`\beta `$, in order to obtain $`\gamma 1`$, as desired on phenomenological grounds, we adjust $`R_{vis}`$ according to Eq. (49). Then, for a chosen $`R_{hid}`$ we calculate $`c_i`$ using Eq.(44). In fact, there are the two solution branches, $`c_{1,2}(R_{hid})=f_{1,2}(\beta ,R_{hid})`$. Positivity of $`B_{hid}^24A_{hid}C_{hid}`$, as determined by the sign of $`1(2+3\beta )/(R_{hid})`$, requires $`R_{hid}<\mathrm{Min}[(2+3\beta ),0]`$ or $`R_{hid}>\mathrm{Max}[0,(2+3\beta )]`$ (the limit cross over taking place at the conformal point of $`\beta =2/3`$). Once $`c_1`$ ($`c_2`$) is chosen, if $`1/\beta `$ is not an integer we check to see if $`1c_1>0`$ ($`1c_2>0`$), as required for a well-defined $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)=d(1ce^{2\sigma (y)})^{1/\beta }`$. Finally, for any values of $`\beta `$ and $`R_{hid}`$, and given choice of branch $`i`$, we check the positivity requirement of Eq. (54). To compute $`M_r^2`$, we adopt Eq. (66), which takes into account the consistency constraint (52) such that $`V_{hid}(0)`$ is expressed in terms of $`V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$. Eq. (66) makes it clear that, for a given value of $`\beta `$, $`M_r^2`$ is proportional to $`V_{vis}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ \[which fixes $`m_0d_i^2`$ through Eq. (53)\] and depends non-trivially on $`R_{hid}`$, the other parameters being held fixed. Remarkably, one finds $`(M_r^2)_i>0`$ (as expected) so long as: (a) $`R_{hid}`$ is such that $`1+(2+3\beta )/R_{hid}>0`$ (so that $`c_{1,2}`$ are real); (b) $`1c_i>0`$ when $`1/\beta `$ is not an integer; and (c) the positivity condition, Eq. (54), which we abbreviate as $`R_{hid}V_{hid}>0`$, is satisfied. There are many different cases. Here we simply describe a couple of illustrative possibilities.

Consider first two choices of $`\beta `$ such that $`2+3\beta >0`$.

* For $`\beta =2/3`$, any value of $`R_{hid}>0`$ gives $`1c_{1,2}>0`$ and $`(R_{hid}V_{hid})_{1,2}>0`$ and substantial values for the corresponding $`(M_r^2)_1`$ and $`(M_r^2)_2`$. For $`R_{hid}<(2+3\beta )=4`$, any value of $`R_{hid}`$ gives $`1c_1>0`$ and substantial $`(M_r^2)_1`$. In all these cases, $`M_r^2`$ is a relatively smooth function of $`R_{hid}`$.

However, in the $`R_{hid}4`$ region, $`1c_2`$ and $`(R_{hid}V_{hid})_2`$ are both only positive for $`4.5<R_{hid}4`$ and $`(M_r^2)_2`$ varies rapidly, as illustrated in Fig. 3. This case illustrates the extreme sensitivity that $`M_r^2`$ can have to $`R_{hid}`$ and shows that very large and very small values of $`M_r^2`$ are quite possible.
* For $`\beta =1/2`$, since $`1/\beta `$ is an integer, the sign of $`1c`$ is unconstrained. One finds $`(R_{hid}V_{hid})_{1,2}>0`$ for all $`R_{hid}>0`$ and $`(M_r^2)_{1,2}>0`$ and behaves smoothly. For all $`R_{hid}<7/2`$, $`(R_{hid}V_{hid})_1<0`$ and this solution branch fails the positivity constraint. In the small region $`4.65<R_{hid}<7/2`$, $`(R_{hid}V_{hid})_2>0`$ and $`(M_r^2)_2>0`$, blowing up at $`R_{hid}4.65`$.

We also briefly describe one interesting $`2+3\beta <0`$ case.

* For $`\beta =1`$, again the $`1c>0`$ constraint is not necessary. For all $`R_{hid}(2+3\beta )=1`$, both $`(R_{hid}V_{hid})_1<0`$ and $`(R_{hid}V_{hid})_2<0`$ so that the $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ solutions both fail the positivity constraint. In contrast, for all $`R_{hid}<0`$ one finds $`(R_{hid}V_{hid})_1>0`$ and, of course, $`(M_r^2)_1>0`$. However, $`(R_{hid}V_{hid})_2>0`$ only for $`0.32<R_{hid}<0`$ and $`R_{hid}<1.78`$ — in these two ranges $`(M_r^2)_2>0`$ aside from a zero at the top end, $`R_{hid}=1.78`$, of the 2nd range.

Overall it is clear that there is a large range of possible models that satisfy all the constraints necessary for exact Randall-Sundrum metric with positive radion mass-squared. (Some particular choices are somewhat more fine-tuned than others.) We have not understood how to choose between the various models; possibly, the conformal models with $`\beta =2/3`$ should be regarded as the more attractive.

## 4 Conclusions

We have considered a class of generalizations of the Randall-Sundrum model containing a bulk scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We demonstrated that no-back reaction from the scalar on the Randall-Sundrum metric solution requires the existence of an extra interaction between gravity and the scalar. Here, we considered the coupling $`Rf(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. A general form of the potential for the fluctuation of the compactification volume (the radion) and the Kaluza-Klein modes of the excitation of the bulk scalar was derived and the mass matrix was determined. In order to obtain the values of scalar masses, one has to take into account the mixing between the radion and the Kaluza-Klein modes of the fluctuation of the bulk scalar. We demonstrated that a non-zero mass for the lowest eigenstate (which we identify with the physical radion) can be generated using a choice of the background bulk field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)`$, that preserves the RS metric (no back-reaction). We found that the radion mass receives the same suppression from the warp factor that is necessary to explain the hierarchy puzzle. Thus, $`1\text{TeV}`$ is a natural order of magnitude for the radion mass. Finally, we illustrated the general scenario for the case of $`f(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$, for which the scalar background solution that preserves the Randall-Sundrum metric was explicitly found.

Since the mass-squared matrix for the radion and KK bulk scalar excitations is non-diagonal, it is clear that the introduction of Higgs-radion mixing on the visible brane through a term in the Lagrangian of the form $`\xi \sqrt{|g_{vis}|}R(g_{vis})\widehat{H}^{}\widehat{H}`$, as considered for example in , would result in a complicated situation where the Higgs field, the radion and the KK excitations of the bulk scalar would all mix. A phenomenological study of the magnitudes of the various mixings, as a function of the available parameters, would be required to understand the extent to which the phenomenology of the physical Higgs boson eigenstate can be modified. Such a study is beyond the scope of this paper.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

B.G. thanks Steve Carlip, Zygmunt Lalak, Krzysztof Meissner, Jacek Pawełczyk, Manuel Toharia, José Wudka and Sachindeo Vaidya for useful discussions. B.G. is especially grateful to Jacek Tafel for reading an early version of the manuscript and for his valuable comments. B.G. is also indebted to the Yukawa Institute and the Davis Institute for High Energy Physics for their warm hospitality extended to him while this work was being performed. B.G. is supported in part by the State Committee for Scientific Research under grant 5 P03B 121 20 (Poland). J.F.G. is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and by the Davis Institute for High Energy Physics. This work was also supported by a joint Warsaw-Davis collaboration grant from the National Science Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Heavy quark mass determination from the quarkonium ground state energy: a pole mass approach

## I Introduction

The pole mass is a central parameter in heavy quark physics but suffers from a renormalon caused ambiguity bigi ; beneke-braun . In the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) it is defined formally as the heavy quark mass at which the residual mass term vanishes. This definition of the pole mass is however incomplete. In general, the parameters and the coefficient functions of HQET should be related to the fundamental quantum chromodynamics (QCD) Lagrangian through the matching process. In particular, in perturbation theory the pole mass is related to the high energy mass such as the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass $`m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ ($`m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}))`$ by

$`m_{\mathrm{pole}}=m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(1+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}p_n\overline{\alpha }_s^{n+1}),`$ (1)
where $`\overline{\alpha }_s=\alpha _s(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})`$ denotes the strong coupling. The problem with this expansion is that it is an asymptotic expansion, with a large order behavior ben ,

$$p_n=C_m\frac{(n+\nu )!}{\nu !}(2\beta _0)^n\left[1+O(1/n)\right],$$
(2)
where $`C_m`$ is a normalization constant and $`\nu =\beta _1/2\beta _0^2`$, with $`\beta _0,\beta _1`$ denoting the first two coefficients of the QCD beta function. Because of the factorial divergence the expansion (1) contains an intrinsic uncertainty of order

$`m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta _0\overline{\alpha }_s}}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}},`$ (3)
which means that within the perturbation theory the pole mass cannot be determined to an accuracy better than $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$ even if the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass is known.

On the other hand, one may try to extract the pole mass from the predictions of physical observables in HQET. But, as well known, this too does not work since the predictions of HQET as well suffer from the renormalon caused uncertainty. As an example, consider the inclusive semileptonic $`B`$ decay rate in HQET,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_{ue\overline{\nu }_e})=\frac{G_\mathrm{F}^2|V_{\mathrm{ub}}|^2}{192\pi ^3}(m_{\mathrm{pole}}^{(b)})^5f(\alpha _s)\{1+O[1/(m_{\mathrm{pole}}^{(b)})^2]\}.$$
(4)
$`f(\alpha _s)`$ contains the QCD corrections to the free $`b`$ quark decay and can be expanded in power series of the strong coupling. This expansion also suffers from the factorially growing divergence similar to that in Eq. (2) and has an intrinsic uncertainty of $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_{\mathrm{pole}}^{(b)})`$ bigi ; bbz . Because of this uncertainty the bottom quark pole mass $`m_{\mathrm{pole}}^{(b)}`$ cannot be extracted to an accuracy better than $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$, even assuming the decay rate is measured precisely and the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $`V_{\mathrm{ub}}`$ is known.

Formally, this problem can be resolved by Borel resummation of the divergent series. Consider again the pole mass expansion (1). The resummed pole mass can be written as

$$m_{\mathrm{pole}}=m_{\mathrm{BR}}\pm i\mathrm{\Gamma }_m,$$
(5)
where $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ denote the real and the imaginary parts of the Borel integral, respectively. The imaginary part arises from the renormalon singularity that gives rise to the large order behavior (2), and is ambiguous; its sign depends on the integration contour taken. In general, an unphysical, ambiguous imaginary part in Borel resummation implies presence of nonperturbative effect and is supposed to be canceled by the latter. In the case of the pole mass, however, the ambiguity is spurious in that in physical observables it is canceled by a corresponding ambiguity in another divergent series in the coefficient functions or the matrix elements neubert ; manohr ; bbz . For example, in the $`B`$ decay rate the ambiguous imaginary part in the resummed pole mass is canceled by the ambiguity in the resummed $`f`$. Thus, as far as physical observables are concerned, the introduction of the nonperturbative effect is not necessary.

Since the ambiguous imaginary parts in Borel resummations in HQET are canceled in physical observables we can entirely ignore them and keep only the real parts, the ‘BR’ quantities. Under this ‘BR’ prescription of Borel resummation the pole mass is defined as

$$m_{\mathrm{pole}}m_{\mathrm{BR}}.$$
(6)
Throughout the paper we take this as the definition of the pole mass, unless implied otherwise. By definition the BR mass, when expanded in the strong coupling constant, has exactly the same perturbative coefficients as the pole mass in perturbation theory.

Although this formal argument resolves the renormalon problem the actual computation of the ‘BR’ quantities is another matter. Since the ambiguity in Borel resummation arises from the renormalon singularity, to calculate a BR quantity to an accuracy better than $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$ it is necessary to have a precise description of the Borel transform in the region that includes the origin and the renormalon singularity. Within the perturbation theory only the first few terms of the power expansion of the Borel transform about the origin are known, so describing the Borel transform beyond the immediate neighborhood of the origin can be a difficult task, since it would require a precise knowledge on the large order behavior.

Describing the Borel transform accurately about the renormalon singularity is equivalent to having an accurate information on the associated large order behavior. Since the essential information in the large order behavior that is missing is the normalization constant (residue) its computation will make the computation of BR quantity possible. Fortunately, the normalization constant can be calculated in perturbation theory lee-residue1 ; lee-residue2 , and the residue of the pole mass expansion can be computed accurately, within a few percent error, from the known next-next-leading order (NNLO) calculations of the expansion (1) lee-pot ; lee-decay ; pineda . This accurate computation of the pole mass residue is important, because the residues of other divergent series whose leading IR renormalon is cancelled by that of the pole mass can be obtained to the same accuracy.

Once the residue is known the Borel transform can be expanded systematically about the renormalon singularity. Then by interpolating this expansion with the perturbative expansion about the origin we can obtain an accurate description of the Borel transform in the region that contains the origin and the singularity. The interpolation itself is encoded in what we call bilocal expansion.

This idea of bilocal expansion of the Borel transform was successfully applied to the heavy quark static potential and the inclusive semileptonic $`B`$ decay lee-pot ; lee-decay . The Borel resummed heavy quark potential, for example, at short and intermediate distances agrees remarkably well with lattice calculations.

So far, the renormalon problem in heavy quark physics was handled essentially by avoiding it by only considering physical observables. Since physical observables are free from renormalons, one can avoid the renormalon problem by replacing the pole mass with a renormalon-free (short distance) mass. Instead, the bilocal expansion allows us to confront the renormalon problem directly, and render us infrared sensitive quantities at our disposal.

In this paper we apply this technique to the perturbative expansion of the heavy quarkonium ground state energy. Our purpose is two fold. First we aim to demonstrate that the scheme described above indeed allows us to extract a properly defined pole mass accurately from experimental data. It is often claimed that a pole mass cannot be determined to accuracy better than $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$. We provide here a counterproof. Secondly, we aim to re-examine the analysis in Ref. penin  which extracts from the quarkonium binding energy the top and bottom quark masses in the pole mass scheme but without taking into account the renormalon effect. We show that a proper handling of the renormalon results in sizable shifts in the extracted quark masses.

## II The method

In this section we give a brief summary of the resummation method of the first infrared (IR) renormalon in heavy quark physics using the bilocal expansion. For details we refer the reader to lee-pot ; lee-decay

Assume a physical quantity $`A(\alpha _s)`$ has perturbative expansion

$$A(\alpha _s)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\alpha _s^{n+1},$$
(7)
and a renormalon ambiguity proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. Then the Borel transform $`\stackrel{~}{A}(b)`$ defined by the Borel integral,

$$A(\alpha _s)=\frac{1}{\beta _0}_{0\pm iϵ}^{\mathrm{}\pm iϵ}e^{b/\beta _0\alpha _s}\stackrel{~}{A}(b)𝑑b,$$
(8)
has the perturbative expansion about the origin,

$$\stackrel{~}{A}(b)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{a_n}{n!}\left(\frac{b}{\beta _0}\right)^n,$$
(9)
and about the renormalon singularity at $`b=1/2`$ of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{A}(b)=\frac{C}{(12b)^{1+\nu }}\left(1+c_1(12b)+c_2(12b)^2+\mathrm{}\right)+(\mathrm{analytic}\mathrm{part}),$$
(10)
where $`C`$ and $`c_i`$ are real constants and $`\nu `$ same as in (2). The coefficients $`c_i`$ can be determined by expanding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ in $`\alpha _s`$, and they depend only on the beta function coefficients. In terms of the known four loop beta function the first two coefficients can be found as ben

$`c_1={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^2\beta _0\beta _2}{4\nu \beta _0^4}},c_2={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^4+4\beta _0^3\beta _1\beta _22\beta _0\beta _1^2\beta _2+\beta _0^2(\beta _2^22\beta _1^3)2\beta _3\beta _0^4}{32\nu (\nu 1)\beta _0^8}}.`$ (11)
The “analytic part” in (10) denotes terms analytic on the disk $`|b1/2|<1`$ about the singularity. The radius of convergence of the expansion (9) is expected to be bounded by the first IR renormalon at $`b=1/2`$ and that of the expansion (10) bounded by the second renormalon at $`b=3/2`$. The Borel transforms of the pole mass and the quarkonium binding energy are expected to satisfy all these conditions.

As noted above, to compute the Borel integral (8) to an accuracy better than $`O(e^{1/2\beta _0\alpha _s})`$ we must have an accurate description of the Borel transform in the region that includes both the origin and the first IR renormalon singularity. This can be done with the bilocal expansion that interpolates the two expansions (9) and (10),

$`\stackrel{~}{A}(b)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{N,M\mathrm{}}{lim}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{N},\mathrm{M}}(b),`$ (12)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{N},\mathrm{M}}(b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_n}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b}{\beta _0}}\right)^n+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{(12b)^{1+\nu }}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}c_i(12b)^i\right].`$ (13)
The coefficients $`h_n`$ are to be determined by demanding the bilocal expansion have the same perturbative expansion about the origin as (9). The first two coefficients $`c_{1,2}`$ are known, so taking $`M=2`$ in (13) we then have

$`h_0`$ $`=`$ $`a_0C(1+c_1+c_2),`$
$`h_1`$ $`=`$ $`a_12C\beta _0[1c_2+\nu (1+c_1+c_2)],`$
$`h_2`$ $`=`$ $`a_24C\beta _0^2[2+\nu (3+c_1c_2)+\nu ^2(1+c_1+c_2)],`$
$`h_3`$ $`=`$ $`a_38C\beta _0^3(1+\nu )[6+\nu (5+2c_1c_2)+\nu ^2(1+c_1+c_2)],\text{etc.}`$ (14)
The interpolating Borel transform $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{N},\mathrm{M}}(b)`$ implements the correct nature of the first renormalon singularity and this allows us to resum the renormalon caused large order behavior to all orders. A quick comparison between (10) and (13) shows that the expansion about the origin in (13), those with the coefficients $`h_n`$, simulates the “analytic part” in (10).

Clearly, a working bilocal expansion requires computation of the renormalon residue. The residue can be calculated perturbatively in a straightforward manner following the observation in lee-residue1 ; lee-residue2 . To compute the residue, notice that

$$C=R(\frac{1}{2}),$$
(15)
where

$$R(b)(12b)^{1+\nu }\stackrel{~}{A}(b).$$
(16)
Now the value of the function $`R(b)`$ at $`b=\frac{1}{2}`$ can be evaluated by a series expansion in powers of $`\frac{1}{2}`$, since $`R(b)`$ is expected to be analytic on the disk $`|b|<1/2`$ and is bounded at $`b=1/2`$. Even though the evaluation occurs precisely on the boundary of the convergence disk, the boundedness of $`R`$ on the boundary guarantees convergence. Note that for the series expansion of $`R(b)`$ only the Borel transform in perturbative form (9) is needed.

The convergence of the power expansion for the residue can be improved by rendering the function $`R`$ to be smoother on the disk $`|b|<1/2`$. This can be done by pushing away from the origin the ultraviolet renormalons and the subleading IR renormalons through an employment of a conformal mapping. For the case of the pole mass and the quarkonium energy we can use the mapping:

$$w=\frac{\sqrt{1+b}\sqrt{12b/3}}{\sqrt{1+b}+\sqrt{12b/3}},$$
(17)
which maps the first IR renormalon to $`w=1/5`$ and all others onto the unit circle. In $`w`$ plane the residue can be obtained by expanding $`R[b(w)]`$ about the origin in power series, and evaluating it at $`w=1/5`$.

## III  Relation between the pole mass and the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass

In this section we show that the relation between the pole mass and the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass in the case of the bottom and top quark can be given to an accuracy much better than $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$. Writing the expansion (1) as

$$m_{\mathrm{pole}}=m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}[1+(\overline{\alpha }_s)],(\overline{\alpha }_s)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_n\overline{\alpha }_s^{n+1},$$
(18)
the Borel transform $`\stackrel{~}{}(b)`$ of $`(\overline{\alpha }_s)`$ has the first IR renormalon singularity precisely of the form (10).

To employ the bilocal expansion for the summation of the series for $``$ we first need the residue $`C_m`$ for the pole mass, corresponding to $`C`$ in Eq. (10). Following the description in the previous section and using the known first three coefficients gray ; melnikov ; chetyrkin

$`p_0`$ $`=`$ $`0.4244,`$
$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`1.36210.1055n_f,`$
$`p_2`$ $`=`$ $`6.14040.8597n_f+0.0211n_f^2,`$ (19)
where $`n_f`$ denotes the number of light quark flavors, we obtain the residue

$$C_m=\{\begin{array}{c}0.4244+0.11510.0099\pm 0.0080=0.5296\pm 0.0080,(n_f=5)\hfill \\ 0.4244+0.1224+0.0101\pm 0.0080=0.5569\pm 0.0080,(n_f=4)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(20)
The errors were obtained by taking the differences between the residues evaluated at NNLO and at next-next-next-leading order (NNNLO), with the latter computed using the NNNLO coefficients estimated following the method in lee-jeong . The good convergence of the residue at such a low order perturbation is indeed remarkable, and it can be traced to the renormalon dominance in the perturbation expansion of the pole mass.

Using the values for $`C_m`$ above and the coefficients (19) we can obtain the interpolating Borel transforms $`\stackrel{~}{}_{0,2}(b),\stackrel{~}{}_{1,2}(b),`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{2,2}(b)`$. With these Borel transforms it is now easy to do the actual Borel summation. The integration in the Borel integral can be performed easily in $`w`$ plane, defined by (17), with the contour now along a ray off the origin to the unit circle in the first (or fourth) quadrant lee-cvetic . Taking the real part of the integral we have

$$m_{\mathrm{BR}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(1+0.060336+0.0013100.000029\pm 0.000046),\hfill & (n_f=5,\mathrm{top}\mathrm{quark})\hfill \\ m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(1+0.1577+0.00410.0003\pm 0.0001),\hfill & (n_f=4,\mathrm{bottom}\mathrm{quark})\hfill \end{array}.$$
(21)
In this computation we have taken, for demonstration purpose, $`\alpha _s^{[5]}(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})=0.108`$ and $`\alpha _s^{[4]}(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})=0.22`$ for the top and bottom quarks, respectively. The errors are from the uncertainties in the computed residues in (20). Notice the remarkable convergence compared to the unresummed series at the same $`\alpha _s`$,

$$m_{\mathrm{pole}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(1+0.0458+0.0097+0.0030),\hfill & (n_f=5,\mathrm{top}\mathrm{quark})\hfill \\ m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(1+0.093+0.045+0.032),\hfill & (n_f=4,\mathrm{bottom}\mathrm{quark})\hfill \end{array}.$$
(22)
Taking $`m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=165`$ GeV for the top and $`m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=4.2`$ GeV for the bottom quark we see the uncertainties in the resummed relations are less than 10 MeV and 1 MeV, respectively — much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$.

The drastic improvement in the convergence comes from the proper treatment of the renormalon singularity in the Borel transform. For comparison, we plot in Fig. 1 the ordinary NNLO Borel transform in power series against the real part of the interpolating Borel transform $`\stackrel{~}{}_{2,2}(b)`$ at $`n_f=4`$. Though they agree on the domain about the origin, as should, the deviation becomes obvious at larger values of $`b`$, close and beyond the singularity at $`b=1/2`$.

The calculation so far clearly shows that direct resummation of the first infrared renormalon is not only feasible but can be efficient.

## IV Resummation of the binding energy

Having established a precise connection between the pole mass and the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass we proceed to the resummation of the binding energy of the quarkonium $`1S`$ state. Since we have nothing new to add to the nonperturbative effects or the heavy quark finite width effect we shall assume the quarks are stable and the system is completely perturbative. Those effects may be added later on to the perturbative result.

Since the early works by Titard and Yndurain ty1 ; ty2  there has been many studies on the precision calculation of the quarkonium energy within perturbative QCD. The binding energy is known to NNLO, and the partial computations of NNNLO energy are also incorporated in recent works yuki1 ; yuki2 ; pineda ; penin .

The quarkonium $`1S`$ energy $`M_{1S}`$ is given as the sum of the pole mass and the binding energy $`E`$,

$`M_{1S}`$ $`=`$ $`2m_{\mathrm{pole}}+E`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`2m_{\mathrm{BR}}+E_{\mathrm{BR}}.`$
In perturbation theory the binding energy can be expanded as

$$E=\overline{\mu }(\mu )\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_n(\xi )\alpha _s(\mu )^{n+1},$$
(24)
where $`\mu `$ is the renormalization scale and

$$\overline{\mu }(\mu )=C_F\alpha _s(\mu )m_{\mathrm{BR}},\xi \frac{\mu }{\overline{\mu }},$$
(25)
and $`C_F=4/3`$. The first three coefficients are known ty1 ; pineda2 , and, for $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}\alpha _s^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, the fourth almost penin22 ; basv ; kpss ; penin , with only the three loop contribution to the static potential not calculated. They are given by $`_n=\frac{1}{3}P_n`$ with

$`P_0`$ $`=`$ $`1,P_1=4\beta _0L+k_1,`$
$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`12\beta _0^2L^2+(8\beta _0^2+4\beta _1+6\beta _0k_1)L+k_2,`$
$`P_3`$ $`=`$ $`32\beta _0^3L^3+(56\beta _0^3+28\beta _0\beta _1+24\beta _0^2k_1)L^2`$ (26)
$`+(16\beta _0^316\beta _0\beta _1+4\beta _212\beta _0^2k_1+6\beta _1k_1+8\beta _0k_2)L+k_3,`$
where $`L=\mathrm{ln}(\xi )`$ and

$`k_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}(97/611n_f/9),`$
$`k_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}(337.947140.96485n_f+1.162857n_f^2),`$
$`k_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^3}}(7078.79001215.5475n_f+69.450816n_f^21.21475n_f^3`$ (27)
$`+0.031250a_3+474.2893\mathrm{ln}[\alpha _s(\mu )]),`$
and the beta function coefficients,

$`\beta _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}(112n_f/3),\beta _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}(10238n_f/3),`$
$`\beta _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^3}}(2857/25033n_f/18+325n_f^2/54).`$ (28)
$`a_3`$ in (27) denotes the unknown three loop coefficient in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme of the static potential in momentum space. Using the Borel transform method of estimating unknown higher order coefficients lee-jeong , we can find an estimate of the three loop coefficient $`V_3`$ of the static potential in coordinates space,

$$V(r)=\frac{1}{r}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_n\alpha _s(1/r)^{n+1},$$
(29)
which reads

$$V_3=\{\begin{array}{cc}19.33\pm 2.73,\hfill & (n_f=5)\hfill \\ 27.03\pm 3.50,\hfill & (n_f=4)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(30)
The corresponding $`a_3`$ is then given by <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 This agrees with the existing estimates within the errors, $`a^3/4^3=60,98`$ from the Padè alias  and $`a^3/4^3=37,72`$ from the large order behavior pineda , for $`n_f=5,4`$, respectively.

$$\frac{a_3}{4^3}=\{\begin{array}{cc}3463,\hfill & (n_f=5)\hfill \\ 5981,\hfill & (n_f=4)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(31)
Note the errors in $`V_3`$ estimates get amplified in the conversion from $`V_3`$ to $`a_3`$ by an order of magnitude, resulting in large errors in the latter. So a few 100% error in $`a_3`$ should be counted as normal.

The binding energy has a renormalon caused ambiguity proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ which is to be canceled by that of the pole mass term ($`2m_{\mathrm{pole}}`$) hoang-teub ; ben98 ; rs , and so the Borel transform $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ of the binding energy can be expanded about the renormalon singularity as

$$\stackrel{~}{E}(b,\xi )=\frac{2C_m\xi \overline{\mu }}{(12b)^{1+\nu }}\left(1+c_1(12b)+c_2(12b)^2+\mathrm{}\right)+(\mathrm{analytic}\mathrm{part})$$
(32)
with $`C_m`$ and $`c_{1,2}`$ given by (20) and (11), respectively. Note that in Eq. (32) the renormalon residue of $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is expressed in terms of the pole mass residue $`C_m`$, using the renormalon cancellation between the pole mass and the binding energy. This is to utilize the accurate computation of the pole mass residue. One can, of course, proceed without refereeing to it, by directly computing the residue from the coefficients (26); however, the convergence is not as good as in the pole mass residue lee-pot ; lee-decay ; pineda . Combining (32) with the expansion about the origin,

$$\stackrel{~}{E}(b,\xi )=\overline{\mu }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{_n(\xi )}{n!}\left(\frac{b}{\beta _0}\right)^n,$$
(33)
into a bilocal expansion following the description in Sec. II we can obtain, using the known coefficients (26), the first four interpolating Borel transforms $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{N,2}(b,\xi )`$ ($`N=0,1,2,3`$).

The Borel resummed binding energy $`E_{\mathrm{BR}}`$ can then be obtained by substituting $`\stackrel{~}{E}(b,\xi )`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{N,2}(b,\xi )`$ in the integral

$$E_{\mathrm{BR}}=\mathrm{Re}\left[\frac{1}{\beta _0}_{0\pm iϵ}^{\mathrm{}\pm iϵ}e^{b/\beta _0\alpha _s(\mu )}\stackrel{~}{E}(b,\xi )𝑑b\right].$$
(34)
In the following we take $`\alpha _s^{[5]}(M_Z)=0.1172\pm 0.002`$ pdg , and use the four loop beta function for the computation of the running coupling $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$.

### IV.1 Top quark

Because of the large mass and decay width of the top quark the toponium $`1S`$ state is expected to have small nonperturbative effects and to be well described by perturbation theory. In future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders the toponium energy $`M_{1S}`$ is expected to be measured precisely from the peak position of top threshold production cross section. This provides a unique opportunity for precision determination of the top mass.

We now perform the Borel integration in (34) with the interpolating Borel transforms. The results are plotted in Fig. 2 at the pole mass value $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}=175\mathrm{GeV}.`$

Notice the very small renormalization scale dependence in the NNNLO resummed energy. It is less than $`10`$ MeV over the range $`30\mathrm{GeV}\mu 150\mathrm{GeV}`$ with $`a_3/4^3=34`$. For comparison we plot the unresummed binding energies in Fig. 3 using the same pole mass. Compared to the unresummed binding energies the improvement of the resummed is clear. They have much smaller perturbation order dependence and scale dependence. It is evident that for precise determination of the binding energy the renormalon must be taken into account properly.

The dominant theoretical uncertainty in the resummed binding energy comes from the uncertainty in the strong coupling constant. In the pole mass scheme under consideration there is a natural scale for the binding energy, the Bohr scale $`\overline{\mu }(\mu _{\mathrm{Bohr}})=\mu _{\mathrm{Bohr}}`$, with $`\mu _{\mathrm{Bohr}}33`$ GeV. We expect an optimal result would come around this scale. Thus, taking the variation of the binding energy at the Bohr scale under $`\delta \alpha _s^{[5]}(M_Z)=0.002`$ we estimate the error caused by the strong coupling to be about $`\pm 150`$ MeV to the binding energy, which would give $`\pm 75`$ MeV uncertainty in the pole mass. Other than the strong coupling the main source of uncertainty is $`a_3`$, as can be seen in Fig. 2. Comparatively, the renormalization scale dependence is small. In Fig. 2 we see that the binding energies at next-leading order (NLO), NNLO and NNNLO come close together in the range $`\mu _{\mathrm{Bohr}}\mu 80\mathrm{GeV}`$, and also the principle of minimal sensitivity (PMS) pms  scales for the NNLO and NNNLO curves lie within the same interval. The renormalization scale dependence over this interval of the central NNNLO line is negligible, less than 2 MeV. The uncertainty in the renormalon residue at $`n_f=5`$ in (20) causes $`\pm 5`$ MeV error to the binding energy. The uncertainty in $`a_3`$ causes another $`\pm 16\mathrm{MeV}`$ error in the binding energy. Combining these errors we conclude that the current theoretical error, excluding that caused by the strong coupling constant, on the pole mass is $`\pm 10\mathrm{MeV}`$.

Once the pole mass is extracted from the binding energy the top mass in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme can be determined using the relation between the BR mass and $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass discussed in Sec. III. The conversion introduces another error due to the uncertainty in the relation, about $`\pm 7`$ MeV to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ top mass. Combining these uncertainties in quadrature the corresponding theoretical uncertainty in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass is about $`\pm 12\mathrm{MeV}`$.

### IV.2 bottom quark

The resummation of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ binding energy can proceed in the same way as in the toponium, only with a few changes of the parameters. We take the renormalon residue and $`a_3`$ estimates in (20) and (31), respectively, for $`n_f=4`$, and for the strong coupling $`\alpha _s^{[4]}(\mu )`$ we use RunDec rundec  with the four loop beta function and three loop matching.

The resummed binding energies from the interpolating Borel transforms at NLO, NNLO, and NNNLO are plotted in Fig. 4 at the pole mass $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}=4.9`$ GeV. For comparison the unresummed binding energies are plotted in Fig. 5. Again, the improvement of the resummed energy is clear. It has better convergence and less scale dependence.

Before the BR mass can be extracted from the fitting of the resummed energy to the precisely measured $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ mass, the nonperturbative effects and the charm mass effect should be subtracted from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ mass. Without taking these effects into account we obtain $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}4.9`$ GeV. The leading nonperturbative effect comes from the Stark effect of the long range gluon fields in the QCD vacuum voloshin ; leutweyler . When the correlation time of the quarkonium state is much smaller than $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ the nonperturbative effect may be expressed in terms of local gluon condensate. Whether $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ is such a state is not clear, but assuming so, the nonperturbative effect is given by

$$\frac{1872}{1275}\frac{m_{\mathrm{BR}}\pi <\alpha _sG_{\mu \nu }^2>}{(C_F\alpha _sm_{\mathrm{BR}})^4}.$$
(35)
The gluon condensate is poorly known. In general, fitted power corrections are contaminated by perturbative corrections, and sensitive to the perturbation order employed in fitting. For gluon condensate, it has been observed zyablyuk  that with higher order perturbation the value extracted is much smaller than the original sum rule value in svz1 . Since in the binding energy the perturbative correction is already at relatively high order (NNNLO) <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2The perturbative ultrasoft correction itself starts at $`O(m\alpha _s^5)`$ kniehl . the condensate for Eq. (35) should not contain significant perturbative corrections, and thus likely to be smaller than the original sum rule value. Here we take $`<\alpha _sG_{\mu \nu }^2>=0.02\pm 0.02`$. Since the local condensate approximation for the nonperturbative effect is likely to provide an upper bound for any potential nonlocal effect gromes , it may be reasonable to assume that this value covers adequately the nonperturbative effect. With $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}=4.9`$ GeV we then get the nonperturbative effect $`60\pm 60`$ MeV in the binding energy. For the nonzero charm mass effect we find, using the result in hoang ; soto , $`20\pm 15`$ MeV in the binding energy. Subtracting these two effects from the experimentally measured $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ mass and comparing the subtracted mass with the PMS value of the resummed energy, $`2m_{\mathrm{BR}}+E_{\mathrm{BR}}`$, we obtain $`m_{\mathrm{BR}}=4.89\pm 0.03`$ GeV.

For the error estimate we notice in Fig. 4 the resummed energies at NLO, NNLO, and NNNLO converge around $`\mu 2.5`$ GeV and the PMS scales for the NNLO and NNNLO resummed energies lie within the range $`m_{\mathrm{Bohr}}\mu 5`$ GeV, where $`m_{\mathrm{Bohr}}2`$ GeV. We therefore take the variations of the resummed energies in this range as the error estimate. Then the uncertainties in the $`a_3`$ and the strong coupling give $`\pm 27`$ MeV and $`\pm 13`$ MeV, respectively, to the binding energy, and the renormalization scale dependence and the uncertainty in the residue (20) cause another $`\pm 30`$ MeV and $`\pm 12`$ MeV, respectively. The error due to the unknown higher order contribution should be partly covered by the error from the residue. However, setting this fact aside we shall assign an independent error $`\pm 35`$ MeV to the binding energy, which is the difference between the respective energies at NNLO and at NNNLO at the Bohr scale. It is interesting to observe that the PMS values at NNLO and NNNLO are virtually identical, an indication that the unknown higher order effect should be small.

Combining these errors (including those from the gluon condensate and the nonzero charm mass effect) in quadrature we have the BR mass for the bottom quark

$$m_{\mathrm{BR}}^{(b)}=4.89\pm 0.04\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(36)
Now, from the BR mass the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass can be obtained through the relation, $`m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(b)}\{1+_{\mathrm{BR}}[\alpha _s^{[4]}(m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(b)})]\}=m_{\mathrm{BR}}^{(b)}`$, from which we obtain

$$m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(b)}=4.20\pm 0.04\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(37)
Compare this to the result from Ref. penin ,

$$m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(b)}=4.346\pm 0.070\mathrm{GeV},$$
(38)
which was obtained without taking the renormalon into account. Notice that the central values have a significant difference, and our value has a smaller error. The reduction in the error largely comes from the smaller renormalization scale dependence. The assigned error for the scale dependence in (38) is more than four times larger than ours, because of much stronger scale dependence in its derivation. This comparison shows that renormalon effect is significant and must be taken into account for accurate determination of the bottom quark mass. Our value for the bottom quark mass (37) compares favorably with the values collected in luke-aida .

## V Discussion

In this paper we have shown that an accurate calculation of the normalization constant of the large order behavior and information on the renormalon singularity allows us a precision calculation of the pole mass and quarkonium binding energy. The existing method of handling the renormalon problem was bypassing it, by concentrating exclusively on directly measurable observables and employing renormalon-free short distance masses. In contrast, in our approach each of the first IR renormalon in IR sensitive quantities is resummed independently, and as a consequence those IR sensitive quantities can be extracted accurately from experimental data.

One of the advantages of our approach is that it provides a natural solution to the scale mixing problem of the approaches based on renormalon cancellation. In systems with far-separated multiple scales the renormalon cancellation approach inevitably mixes those scales through the renormalization scale, forcing one to choose an optimal scale over a wide range of scales. Depending on the problem this can be a source of significant error. For instance, in the top-pair threshold production the normalization of the production cross section is known to be sensitive to the choice of the renormalization scale toppair , which can limit the accuracy of the extracted strong coupling constant. With our approach, this problem can be solved by resumming the top pole mass and the interquark potential at their respective optimal scales, namely, the top mass and the interquark distance.

This suggests a potential improvement in the bottom quark mass determination. Instead of applying the resummation to the perturbatively calculated binding energy, as we did in this paper, one may solve the Schroedinger equation, which was advocated in shroe , with a resummed interquark potential to obtain a more accurate binding energy. It should be noted, however, presently the error in the bottom quark mass is dominated by the nonperturbative effect.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author wish to thank A. Pineda for patiently answering questions. He also thanks Kingman Cheung and high energy theory group at NCTS, Hsinchu, Taiwan, for warm hospitality extended to the author during his visit. This work was supported partly by the BK21 program.