text:
# Scale Invariance without Inflation?

## I Introduction

During the last decade, several experiments have probed the nature of the primeval perturbations that gave rise to the anisotropies observed in the universe WMAP . The results of these measurements are consistent with an adiabatic, Gaussian and nearly scale invariant primordial spectrum of perturbations, as predicted by the simplest models of inflation MukhanovChibisov . Due to the central role that the origin of these perturbations plays in our understanding of the early universe, it is important to ascertain to what extent alternatives to seed such a spectrum exist. In the context of a universe dominated by a single canonical scalar field coupled to general relativity, this issue has been investigated in GrKhStTu . In a contracting universe, there are two ways to seed a scale invariant spectrum alternatives , and in an expanding universes only a stage of de Sitter inflation can generate it. Other alternatives that relax some of the assumptions made in GrKhStTu  have been discussed in BrandenbergerHo ; HollandsWald ; AvelinoMartins ; Oaknin . It is fair to say though, that the only presently known, widely accepted way to seed a scale invariant spectrum of perturbations in an expanding universe requires a stage of de Sitter inflation.

During inflation, the physical length of a perturbation grows faster than the Hubble radius $`H^1`$. Hence, because for a scalar field the sound of speed is one, initially sub-horizon sized modes cross the *sound* horizon and subsequently freeze. Note that the crossing of the sound horizon $`c_sH^1`$, rather than the Hubble radius, is what leads to the causal seeding of a primordial spectrum of density perturbations.

In this paper we propose an alternative seeding mechanism in an *expanding* universe that does not require inflation. In our scenario, modes cross the sound horizon because the sound speed decreases sufficiently fast. The amplitude of the perturbations depends on the values of the Hubble parameter and the sound speed at the time of crossing. If the sound speed decays appropriately, it is also possible to seed a scale invariant spectrum. In order to push the seeded perturbations to super-Hubble scales, it is necessary that a period of inflation follows the seeding. However, let us emphasize that the seeding and inflation are two distinct, unrelated cosmological phases; the nature of the seeded spectrum is independent of the properties of the inflationary stage, which does not have to be de Sitter-like.

We discuss a particular realization of the scenario outlined above. Although the particular model we discuss can successfully seed a scale invariant spectrum of density perturbations, it turns out that it cannot account for the observed amplitude. Specifically, if one requires the amplitude of the seeded perturbations to agree with the one observed in CMB anisotropies, our model can seed only about two decades in $`k`$ space (instead of the required three to four). On the other hand, if one requires the seeding to span about three decades, then the amplitude of the seeded perturbations has to be smaller than the observed one. The only way to escape this conclusion is to assume that between seeding and observation the amplitude of the seeded spectrum is boosted to the observed value by a different mechanism.

## II Formalism

Consider a spatially flat FRW universe dominated by an isentropic perfect fluid. We would like to study scalar perturbations in such a universe MuFeBr , so we shall deal with the perturbed metric (in longitudinal gauge)

$$ds^2=a^2(\eta )\left[(1+2\mathrm{\Phi })d\eta ^2(12\mathrm{\Phi })d\stackrel{}{x}^2\right].$$
(1)
The evolution of the scale factor is determined by the background Einstein equations

$$^2=a^2\rho \text{and}^{}=\frac{^2}{2}(1+3w),$$
(2)
where $`=a^{}/a`$ and prime denotes a derivative with respect to conformal time $`\eta `$. We work in units where Newton’s constant is $`G=3/(8\pi )`$ and, as usual, we have defined the equation of state parameter $`w=p/\rho `$. The pressure of the fluid is $`p`$, and $`\rho `$ is its energy density. The Hubble parameter is $`H=/a`$.

The evolution of the scalar perturbations can be described in terms of the Mukhanov variable $`v`$, which is a linear combination of the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the fluid perturbations MuFeBr ; GarrigaMukhanov . The Fourier components of the Mukhanov variable $`v_k`$ obey the simple differential equation

$$v_k^{\prime \prime }+\left(c_s^2k^2\frac{z^{\prime \prime }}{z}\right)v_k=0,$$
(3)
where the variable $`z`$ is given by

$$z=\frac{a(1+w)^{1/2}}{c_s},$$
(4)
and the speed of sound of the isentropic fluid is

$$c_s^2\frac{dp}{d\rho }=w\frac{w^{}}{3(1+w)}.$$
(5)
Note that for isentropic fluids, the equation of state and the speed of sound are linked by the fluid equation of motion $`\rho ^{}+3\rho (1+w)=0`$.

Whereas the variable $`v`$ proves to be useful to study the quantization and the evolution of the perturbations, the Bardeen variable

$$\zeta =\frac{v}{z}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{^1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }}{1+w}+\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(6)
turns to be more convenient to compute observable quantities, such as the temperature anisotropies in the CMB radiation. These anisotropies can be characterized by the the power spectrum

$$𝒫_\zeta =\frac{k^3}{4\pi ^2}|\zeta _k|^2,$$
(7)
which is a measure of the mean square fluctuations of the variable $`\zeta `$ on comoving scales $`1/k`$. The variable $`\zeta `$ is also useful because it can be directly related to the perturbations in the energy density. In fact, in cases where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is constant, it follows from Eq. (6) that $`\zeta _k\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$. Using Poisson’s equation (for modes smaller than the Hubble radius) we then find

$$𝒫_{\delta \rho /\rho }\frac{k^4𝒫_\zeta }{a^4\rho ^2},$$
(8)
which connects the inhomogeneities in $`\zeta `$ to the inhomogeneities in the fractional density contrast.

Let us turn our attention to the equation of motion of the perturbations, Eq. (3). By definition, in the short-wavelength regime $`c_s^2k^2z^{\prime \prime }/z`$. If $`c_s`$ and $`w`$ are constant, the last condition translates into $`c_s^2k^2a^2H^2`$, which means that modes are smaller than the sound horizon. In this regime, an approximate solution of Eq. (3) is

$$v_k(\eta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{c_s(\eta )k}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i^\eta c_s(\stackrel{~}{\eta })k𝑑\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right).$$
(9)
This WKB-like solution is valid as long as the change in the frequency $`c_sk`$ is adiabatic,

$$c_s^2k^2\frac{c_s^{\prime \prime }}{c_s}\text{and}c_s^2k^2\left(\frac{c_s^{}}{c_s}\right)^2.$$
(10)
Then, the approximate solution (9) corresponds to zeroth-order adiabatic vacuum initial conditions BirrellDavies . In the long-wavelength regime, $`c_s^2k^2z^{\prime \prime }/z`$, one of the solutions of Eq. (3) is proportional to $`z`$. Hence, if $`vz`$ is the dominant solution of Eq. (3), for long-wavelength modes the variable $`\zeta `$ is conserved. This remains true as long as there are no entropy perturbations.

## III Decaying sound speed

In order to causally seed a spectrum of perturbations it is necessary that modes that initially lie in the short-wavelength regime, where natural initial conditions exist, enter the long-wavelength regime and subsequently freeze. This occurs only if

$$\left(\frac{z^{\prime \prime }}{c_s^2z}\right)^{}>0.$$
(11)
One way to satisfy condition (11) is to assume that $`c_s=1`$ and $`w<1/3`$. Then, $`z^{\prime \prime }/za^2H^2`$ increases while $`c_s`$ remains constant. In physical terms, this means the physical length of a mode, $`a/k`$, grows faster than the Hubble radius $`H^1`$, the condition that singles out inflation. Recall that for a (canonical) scalar field $`c_s`$ is indeed equal one GarrigaMukhanov .

There are nevertheless additional ways to satisfy the seeding condition (11). The main idea of our paper is that a rapidly changing speed of sound can also result in the seeding of a scale invariant spectrum. Even if $`z^{\prime \prime }/za^2H^2`$ decreases in time, if $`c_s`$ changes fast enough it is possible to satisfy condition (11). Physically, this means that the length of a mode grows faster than the *sound* horizon $`c_sH^1`$. In the following we present a model that realizes this idea. For simplicity, we assume here that the fluid that dominates the universe is isentropic. In that case, the sound speed is determined by the equation of state, which in turn is determined by the expansion of the universe. Hence, the free parameters of our simple model are tightly constrained. By considering non-isentropic fluids or non-canonical scalar fields, one could avoid these restrictions.

## IV A simple model

Suppose that the early universe is dominated by an isentropic fluid with polytropic equation of state

$$p=w_{}\rho _{}\left(\frac{\rho }{\rho _{}}\right)^{1+\alpha /3}.$$
(12)
Here $`\alpha `$ is a free parameter that characterizes the polytropic index and $`w_{}`$ is the value of the equation of state parameter for $`\rho =\rho _{}`$. Perfect fluids with polytropic equations of state have been long and widely considered in astrophysics polytropic .

If $`w_{}1`$, for energy densities below $`\rho _{}`$ the pressure $`p`$ is negligible. Under the assumption $`p\rho `$, integration of Eqs. (2) yields

$$a=a_{}\left(\frac{\eta }{\eta _{}}\right)^2,=\frac{2}{\eta },$$
(13)
which is of course how a dust-dominated universe evolves in conformal time. Although the equation of state parameter and the sound speed are small, they are not exactly zero. Using Eqs. (12), (2) and (5) we find

$$w=w_{}\left(\frac{\eta }{\eta _{}}\right)^{2\alpha },c_s^2=\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{3}\right)w(\eta ).$$
(14)
Finally, substituting these expressions into Eq. (4) we arrive at

$$\frac{z^{\prime \prime }}{z}=\frac{2+3\alpha +\alpha ^2}{4}^2.$$
(15)
Therefore, the seeding condition Eq. (11) is satisfied only if $`c_s`$ decays fast enough, $`\alpha >1`$. The origin of this condition can be also interpreted in physical terms. The physical length of a mode is $`\lambda =a/k`$, and the size of the sound horizon is $`c_sH^1`$. Requiring the physical length of a mode to grow faster than the sound horizon also yields $`\alpha >1`$. Note that if $`\alpha >3`$, both speed of sound and sound horizon decay.

With $`z^{\prime \prime }/z`$ given by Eq. (15) and $`c_s^2`$ given by Eq. (14) the differential equation (3) has the solution

$$v_k=\eta ^{1/2}\left[A_kH_\nu \left(\frac{c_sk}{\alpha 1}\eta \right)+B_kH_\nu ^{}\left(\frac{c_sk}{\alpha 1}\eta \right)\right],$$
(16)
where $`H_\nu `$ is the Hankel function of the first kind and

$$\nu =\frac{2\alpha +3}{2(\alpha 1)}.$$
(17)
The coefficients $`A_k`$ and $`B_k`$ are integration constants determined by the initial conditions. For modes well within the short-wavelength regime, the adiabaticity conditions (10) are satisfied. Setting

$$A_k=\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2(\alpha 1)}},B_k=0$$
(18)
the solution (16) approaches the adiabatic vacuum (9). Substituting Eq. (16) into Eq. (7) we find that in the long-wavelength regime the power-spectrum $`𝒫_\zeta `$ is time-independent. Expressing it in terms of the values of $`H`$ and $`c_s`$ at the time a reference scale $`k_{}`$ crosses the sound horizon, $`c_s^{}k_{}=a_{}H_{}`$, results into

$$𝒫_\zeta =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\nu )(\alpha 1)^{2\nu 1}}{4\pi ^3}\frac{H_{}^2}{c_s^{}}\left(\frac{k}{k_{}}\right)^{n_s1},$$
(19)
where $`\nu `$ is determined by Eq. (17) and the spectral index is given by

$$n_s1=\frac{\alpha 6}{\alpha 1}.$$
(20)
Hence, for $`\alpha >6`$ the spectrum is blue, for $`\alpha =6`$ it is scale invariant111Although this statement is true in our approximation $`w0`$, the arbitrarily small deviations from $`w=0`$ will cause deviations from scale invariance even if $`\alpha =6`$. and for $`\alpha <6`$ it is red. In particular, one can imagine a situation where $`\alpha `$ is mildly $`\rho `$-dependent and increasing as a function of $`\rho `$. In such a case, the spectral index would run from $`n_s>1`$ to $`n_s<1`$ at smaller scales, as hinted by recent observations WMAP . Because the seeded perturbations originate from quantum fluctuations of the fluid, they are expected to be Gaussian.

### IV.1 Observational constraints

Large scale structure and CMB measurements probe the primordial spectrum on scales that range from the size of today’s Hubble radius to scales about $`10^3`$ times smaller. Presently, these probes are consistent with an adiabatic, Gaussian, nearly scale invariant spectrum with amplitude $`𝒫_\zeta 10^{10}`$ WMAP . In this section we explore whether our model is capable of successfully accounting for these primordial anisotropies and how these observations constrain and affect our model.

Suppose that the seeding of perturbations we have described lasts for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_s`$ $`e`$-folds. The minimal value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_s`$ is determined by the requirement that our mechanism seeds perturbations spanning three decades in $`k`$ space. Because modes are seeded when they cross the sound horizon, $`c_sk=aH`$, using Eqs. (13) and (14) one thus finds that the number of $`e`$-folds of seeding has to satisfy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_s\frac{D\mathrm{log}10}{1+\alpha /23/2},$$
(21)
where $`D`$ is the number of cosmologically relevant decades in $`k`$ space (about three). After the seeding, we assume that the universe evolves with constant equation of state $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$ for a period of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\stackrel{~}{w}}`$ $`e`$-folds. Next, the universe is reheated at $`a_{rh}`$ and it subsequently undergoes a radiation dominated phase until equipartition $`a_{eq}`$. Following equipartition the universe becomes matter dominated until today $`a_0`$ (for simplicity we neglect the recent stage of cosmic acceleration). Thus, at the beginning of the seeding, the physical size of a comoving scale $`k_{}`$ was

$$\lambda _{}=\frac{a_0}{k_{}}\frac{a_{eq}}{a_0}\frac{a_{rh}}{a_{eq}}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\stackrel{~}{w}})\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }N_s).$$
(22)
On the other hand, the value of the Hubble parameter at that time was

$$H_{}=H_0\left(\frac{a_0}{a_{eq}}\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{a_{eq}}{a_{rh}}\right)^2e^{3\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\stackrel{~}{w}}(1+\stackrel{~}{w})/2}e^{3\mathrm{\Delta }N_s/2}.$$
(23)
Using the last two equations, one can compute the value of the speed of sound at the time the present Hubble radius $`k_{}=a_0H_0`$ crossed the sound horizon during seeding, $`c_s^{}H_{}^1=\lambda _{}`$,

$$c_s^{}=\left(\frac{a_0}{a_{eq}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{a_{eq}}{a_{rh}}\right)e^{(1+3\stackrel{~}{w})\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\stackrel{~}{w}}/2}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }N_s/2}.$$
(24)
Equipartition occurred at $`a_0/a_{eq}310^3`$, and because reheating has to happen before nucleosynthesis, $`a_{eq}/a_{rh}10^8`$. Since the speed of sound and the equation of state parameter are related by Eq. (14), inspection of Eq. (24) shows that in order to prevent a violation of the condition $`w1`$, we have to assume that the seeding was followed by a stage of inflation, $`\stackrel{~}{w}<1/3`$.

The evolution of a particular comoving scale $`k`$ in time is depicted in Fig. 1. Observe that in our model, the seeding of the scalar perturbations and the inflationary epoch are decoupled from each other. The only purpose of the inflationary stage is to allow for a small speed of sound during the seeding and to push the already seeded spectrum of perturbations to scales larger than the Hubble radius. Gravitational waves are seeded only during the stage of inflation. Because the amplitude of the tensor perturbations at the time a given scale crosses the Hubble radius is proportional to $`H`$, the tensor to scalar ratio at $`k_{}=a_0H_0`$ is, up to constants of order one,

$$\frac{𝒫_h}{𝒫_\zeta }|_k_{}(c_s^{})^{\frac{5+3\stackrel{~}{w}}{1+3\stackrel{~}{w}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{6\stackrel{~}{w}}{1+3\stackrel{~}{w}}\mathrm{\Delta }N_s\right).$$
(25)
Since $`c_s^{}`$ is small, tensor perturbations are suppressed. The same argument applies to scalar perturbations generated during any inflationary regime driven by a component different from the seeding fluid.

Inflation might be driven by the same component that causes the seeding, e.g. by a k-field k-inflation , or it might be driven by a second component, like a conventional scalar. In the former case, in order to preserve the seeded spectrum, it is important that perturbations do not reenter the sound horizon during inflation. This is possible during k-inflation, because the speed of sound and the equation of state parameters are two arbitrary independent quantities. In the latter case, it is important that no entropic component be generated during inflation. Just as for gravitational waves, such entropic perturbations are expected to be negligible. Nevertheless, the presence of a second component could have non-trivial consequences, such as for instance, a boost in the primordial amplitude of the perturbations due to parametric resonance during reheating FinelliBrandenberger .

It turns out that the validity of perturbation theory severely constrains our model. Using Eq. (8) one can compute the value of $`\delta \rho /\rho `$ at the time of sound horizon crossing for the last seeded mode222The constraint that follows by considering this mode is stronger than the one requiring that the density perturbation for the mode $`k_{}`$ remain in the linear regime.,

$$𝒫_{\delta \rho /\rho }=\frac{𝒫_\zeta }{c_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }N_s\right)}.$$
(26)
The validity of perturbation theory requires $`𝒫_{\delta \rho /\rho }<1`$, and self-consistency of our derivation $`c_s^{}<1`$. Therefore we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_s<\frac{\mathrm{log}𝒫_\zeta ^1}{2\alpha }.$$
(27)
The amplitude of the primordial fluctuations observed in CMB temperature anisotropies implies $`𝒫_\zeta 10^{10}`$ WMAP . Setting $`\alpha =6`$ ($`n_s=1`$) in the last equation we thus find $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_s<2`$, which is somewhat smaller than the observationally required $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_s3`$ that follow from Eq. (21) (for $`D=3`$).

### IV.2 A Microscopic Description

Although Eq. (12) uniquely specifies the perfect fluid model, it might be desirable to cast our model into a microscopic formulation. Consider a scalar field $`\phi `$ with Lagrangian

$$L=p(X),\text{where}X=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }\frac{\phi }{x^\mu }\frac{\phi }{x^\nu }.$$
(28)
Here, $`p`$ is an as of yet unspecified, arbitrary function of $`X`$. Such a Lagrangian describes a k-field k-inflation . For timelike field gradients, the energy momentum tensor of the k-field has perfect fluid form, with pressure given by $`p(X)`$ and energy density given by $`\rho (X)=2Xdp/dXp`$. Because the Lagrangian only depends on $`X`$, in this particular case the k-field behaves as an isentropic fluid. Using the previous expression for $`\rho (X)`$ one can derive a differential equation for the $`p(X)`$ that leads to the desired equation of state (12). The solution is

$$p(X)=w_{}\rho _{}\left[1+\frac{\alpha }{2w_{}(3+\alpha )}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{X}{X_{}}\right)\right]^{1+3/\alpha },$$
(29)
where $`p\rho `$ has been assumed.

## V Conclusions

We have presented a novel alternative mechanism to causally seed a spectrum of density perturbations in an expanding universe. In our scenario, the decaying sound speed of an isentropic perfect fluid causes perturbations to be left frozen behind the sound horizon, with a spectrum that depends on the decay rate of the sound speed. In order for the seeded spectrum to correspond to cosmologically relevant scales, an inflationary stage has to follow the phase of perturbation seeding. Therefore, the seeding and the spectrum of the perturbations and the inflationary stage are distinct unrelated cosmological phases. Since the inflationary stage happens after the seeding, the gravitational waves generated during the inflationary stage are suppressed compared to scalar perturbations.

Although the particular model we have discussed can successfully explain a scale invariant spectrum of Gaussian, adiabatic perturbations on observable scales, it cannot account for its observed amplitude in the cosmologically relevant window of about three decades in $`k`$ space. The only way we are aware of to avoid this conclusion is to assume that parametric resonance during reheating boosts the amplitude of the primordial spectrum to its observed value FinelliBrandenberger . At this point one should also bear in mind that we have explored only one particular realization of our scenario. In fact, we are not aware of any physical principle that would prevent other realizations to also account for the correct amplitude in a larger cosmological window.

Why should we consider a stage of pre-inflationary seeding if perturbations can be generated during inflation anyway? It turns out that in some cases it might be useful to decouple the seeding of the perturbations from the stage of inflation curvaton . This decoupling acquires particular relevance in the light of the recent signs of a running spectral index WMAP . Such a running can be accommodated by conventional inflationary models only at the cost of spoiling their simplicity and economy ChShTr . If in the era of precision cosmology one is forced to replace simplicity by phenomenological success, less simple alternatives to the conventional models might be attractive too.

On the other hand, our results can be also interpreted from a different perspective: They display how many hurdles one has to overcome in order to seed a phenomenologically realistic spectrum of perturbations without inflation.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank R. Brandenberger, Sean Carroll, Wayne Hu and V. Mukhanov for useful comments and discussions. CAP was supported by the US DOE grant DE-FG02-90ER40560, and EAL was supported by the US DOE grant DE-FG02-90ER40560 and the Packard foundation.


format: text

text:
# A Completed Chiral Fermionic Sector Model with Little Higgs

## Abstract

The Standard Model has some intrinsic beauty in the sector of fermions and gauge bosons. Its scalar sector, though minimal, is however haunted by the hierarchy problem. The fermionic spectrum also have two major problems, the flavor problem with its fundamental notion about why there are three families, and the phenomenological limitation of massless neutrinos. We present here a completed chiral fermionic sector model, based on a little Higgs model, that has the plausible potential of addressing all these problems of the SM at an accessible energy scale, and comment briefly on its phenomenology. The focus here is not on the little Higgs part, but rather on the electroweak quarks and leptons from the model, which of course from an important part of the full model.

preprint:   NCU-HEP-k009 rev. Jul 2003

Particle theorists have been working on extending the Standard Model (SM) for some thirty years. A major theme in such model-building works is to extend the $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge symmetry, as exemplified by the classic $`SU(5)`$ grand unification modelsu5 . The attempts to go beyond the SM are motivated by many limitations of the SM itself, as much as by our desire to see some other layer of structure in nature. For that matter, the grand desert spanning the next fourteen orders of magnitude in energy/length scale as suggested by the (supersymmetric) gauge unification idea certainly sounds a bit boring to some of us. Does nature has more excitement to offer at the next energy/length scale? Supersymmetry (SUSY) is a beautiful idea, but its low energy implementation does leave much to be desire. However, the supersymmetric SM stays popular over the decades for some good reasons. In our opinion, the major part of it is the fact that it offers a solution to the hierarchy problem (of stabilizing the Higgs masses) without quite compromising the perfect beauty of the (one-family) chiral fermionic spectrum of the SM, while maintaining its phenomenological viability in front of all the precision electroweak data. All those are done by incorporating one basic symmetry — supersymmetry into the SM. To contemplate a really competitive alternative, one needs to take this to the heart.

The first central ingredient of the SM, or its supersymmetric extension, is its gauge symmetry. One perspective of extending that gauge symmetry leads to the “exceptional” embedding sequence of

$$SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_YSU(5)SO(10)E(6)E(7)E(8).$$

From the perspective of the fermionic spectrum, the embedding is vertical, i.e. a one-family unification. The highly nontrivial chiral gauge anomaly cancellation among the different fermionic multiplets of the quarks and leptons in the SM is sort of trivialized in the embedding at the $`SO(10)`$ level, while new fermionic states also started to be required. The most intriguing aspect of the spectrum, the fact that there are three families, remains unexplained. Adding SUSY only make the flavor problem more complicated from the phenomenological point of view. There are also in the literature many horizontal (or family) symmetry modelshs , in which extra symmetries are added to describe flavor physics. However, it is fair to say that only such kind of models with a nonabelian gauge horizontal symmetry address, to some extent, why there are three families. This is again through the issue of nontrivial chiral gauge anomaly cancellationunc .

Nontrivial three-family \[$`SU(5)`$ based\] unification models also has an early historysu7 . Attempts in model-building with an extended gauge symmetry that incorporates a nontrivial family structure are however less popular. Such models, if not unification based, should be more interesting. They could provide much more accessible phenomenology while explaining the flavor structure. And such (flavor) models offer the potential of tackling the hierarchy problem and other limitations of the SM at the same time — the new model we present below may be the first example with some success along the line. We would like to name two particular examples of the kind of models, an $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X`$ (331) model331  without family changing gauge boson, and an $`SU(4)_A\times SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_X`$ model and generalizationsunc67  with family changing gauge bosons.

One other limitation of the SM is its massless neutrinos. To explain the neutrino oscillation data, we need beyond SM properties of neutrinos — either couplings with or without extra (singlet) neutrino states. While it can be argue that the generic supersymmetric SM, without the ad hoc R parity imposed, naturally solve the problemas89 , most alternatives requires having extra singlet (or called right-handed) neutrino states at some scale.

We now start the discussion of the construction of a new model that has the potential to address the hierarchy problem, flavor problem, and neutrino mass problem, altogether at an accessible energy scale. The desirability of such a model is well illustrated by the above discussions. The starting point of our construction is a simple, though less than perfect, little Higgs model from Ref.KS .

The little Higgs idea is an interesting alternative solution to the hierarchy problemS . The SM Higgs boson is here to be identified as pseudo-Nambu Goldstone bosons (PNGB) of some global symmetry. Two separate global symmetries, each to be broken by a Higgs vacuum expectation value (VEV), are to be arranged such that a 1-loop (SM) Higgs mass diagram is protected by the (residue) symmetries to be free from quadratic divergence. The idea was motivated by dimensional deconstructiondd , though the mechanism may not necessarily follows from the strong interaction dynamics behind as suggestedL . Recently, simple group theoretical constructions of little Higgs models are attemptedKS ; S . little Higgs construction looks a bit like a heavy machinery to fix only the hierarchy problem, and would remain a toy model without a completed description of the SM fermionic embedding. The necessarily extended gauge symmetry, to provide quadratic divergent Higgs mass contribution cancellation to the electroweak gauge bosons, means that the embedding into a consistent model is highly nontrivial, due to gauge anomalies. Building such a model embedding looks similar to the model-building works for the flavor problem discussed above. This is the major focus of the present letter. The consistent fermionic spectrum is also the basis for further studies of what implications the little Higgs structure really have for flavor physics.

We take the simplest model with a $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X`$ gauge symmetry in Ref.KS . The $`t`$-$`b`$ quark doublet of $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ is to be embedded into a $`SU(3)_L`$ triplet as follows

$$3_L=\left[\begin{array}{c}t^a\\ b^a\\ T^a\end{array}\right]$$
(1)
with $`X`$-charge being $`\frac{1}{3}`$. The third state is another top-like quark $`T`$, with the usual electric charge of $`𝒬=\frac{2}{3}`$; and $`a`$ represents the $`SU(3)_C`$ index. In fact, we have here

$$𝒬=\frac{1}{2}\lambda _L^3\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\lambda _L^8+X;$$
(2)
or $`Y=X\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\lambda _L^8`$ ($`𝒬=T_3+Y`$). The vector like QCD spectrum is to be recovered by having the Dirac partners in $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X`$ singlets as

$$1_L=\overline{b}_a,\overline{t^{}}_a,\overline{T^{}}_a.$$
(3)
with $`𝒬=X=\frac{1}{3}\text{and}\frac{2}{3}`$ respectively. So far, this is what had been suggested in Ref.KS . The extra top quark $`T`$ is exactly what is needed to cancel the 1-loop quadratic divergence in the Higgs mass(es) as required by the little Higgs idea. The electroweak Higgs doublets are embedded into $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X`$ anti-triplets ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s) of $`X=\frac{1}{3}`$. The $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s bear VEVs that break the gauge symmetry to that of the SM at scale $`f`$ of about 1 TeV. One expect the Yukawa couplings

$`_{top}`$ $`=`$ $`y_1\overline{t^{}}_a\mathrm{\Phi }_1Q^a+y_2\overline{T^{}}_a\mathrm{\Phi }_2Q^a`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`f(y_1\overline{t^{}}+y_2\overline{T^{}})T+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}(y_1\overline{t}^{}y_2\overline{T}^{})h\left(\begin{array}{c}t\\ b\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`m_T\overline{T}Tiy_t\overline{t}h\left(\begin{array}{c}t\\ b\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (9)
Here $`Q^a`$ denotes the triplet of Eq.(1); and we suppress the color indices after the first line. Both $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ are expected to be of order one to produced the phenomenological top mass from electroweak symmetry breaking. The part of the model discussed in this paragraph is all taken from Ref.KS . We have no much to add, in this short letter, to the little Higgs story but rather prefer to focus on the fermionic part — the full set of SM quarks and leptons. Without further dwelling on the little Higgs part of the model, we refer the readers to Ref.KS  for the details of how the quadratic divergence cancellation works here. We would like to bring the readers attention to a potential limitation of the current model as a little Higgs model though. This is the difficulty with getting a good Higgs quartic coupling. In fact, the latter motivated the authors of Ref.KS  go to the construction of a similar but more preferable $`SU(4)_L\times U(1)_X`$ model. We will report of constructions of consistent $`SU(4)_L\times U(1)_X`$ fermion spectra in a coming publication010 .

A question of paramount importance not handled in Ref.KS  is the complete fermionic spectrum under $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X`$.111In fact, Ref.KS  has a bit of discussion on the other SM fermions, which we find unsatisfactory from the current model-building point of view. We emphasize again that the issue is nontrivial, due to the chiral gauge anomaly cancellation required. For example, it is quite obvious that a similar quark embedding for the lighter two families does not work. While all representation of $`SU(2)`$ are real, the complex nature of the $`SU(3)_L`$ fundamental representation process nontrivial anomaly. The nine $`3_L`$ representations has anomaly added up that required maybe the same number of $`\overline{3}_L`$ fermions to cancel it. Adding the large number of fermionic states to the spectrum is highly undesirable. Moreover, one would still has to add more states to take care of the SM leptonic sector. It is not simpler about adding enough representations under the full gauge group $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X`$ to incorporate all the SM chiral fermions and taking care of the $`SU(3)_L`$ chiral anomaly either. The full fermionic spectrum better be vectorlike at the QCD and QED level or risk predicting the existence of extra massless fermions. And finally, all chiral anomalies, including also the $`SU(3)_C`$ and $`U(1)_X`$ parts and all the mixed anomalies, have to be canceled. If a judicially chosen fermionic spectrum satisfying the above cannot be found, the little Higgs model remains a toy model for the scalar sector, incapable of being a consistent particle physics model extending the SM.

However, the family universal structure mentioned above is not necessary, nor desirable. The idea of treating the third family different from the lighter two has been a favorable tool in the kit of family symmetry model-builders, as mentioned in the introduction above. With the complex $`3_L`$, one may also used a $`\overline{3}_L`$ to house a SM doublet. The bonus is that we can have nontrivial anomaly cancellation among the three families, hence bring another major goal of model-builders into the little Higgs game.

Here, we present in this letter a completed chiral fermionic sector model having exactly the above discussed features. We have the quark doublets of the other two families embedded as follow:

$$\overline{3}_L=\left[\begin{array}{c}d^a\\ u^a\\ D^a\end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{c}s^a\\ c^a\\ S^a\end{array}\right].$$
(10)
$`X=0`$ gives the right $`U(1)`$ charges. The new quarks $`D`$ and $`S`$ are also down-type quark (with $`𝒬=\frac{1}{3}`$). Each of the quark states has a matching Dirac partner to keep QCD vectorlike, i.e. we have the singlets

$$1_L=\overline{u}_a,\overline{d}_a^{},\overline{D}_a^{},\overline{c}_a,\overline{s}_a^{},\overline{S}_a^{};$$
(11)
each with their $`X`$-charge given exactly by the electric charge $`𝒬`$ \[cf. Eq.(2)\]. We have then, within the quark sector, three $`\overline{3}_L`$ in excess. The latter is to be canceled by three (colorless) $`3_L`$ representations housing the leptonic doublets in a family universal pattern. Explicitly, we have

$$3_L=\left[\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ e^{}\\ N_e\end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{c}\nu _\mu \\ \mu ^{}\\ N_\mu \end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{c}\nu _\tau \\ \tau ^{}\\ N_\tau \end{array}\right],$$
(12)
with $`X=\frac{1}{3}`$. The full spectrum is completed with the three leptonic singlets as

$$1_L=e^+,\mu ^+,\tau ^+,$$
(13)
with $`X=1`$.

One can easily check that all the potentially dangerous triangle anomalies, $`(3_C)^3`$, $`(3_C)^2X`$, $`(3_L)^3`$, $`(3_L)^2X`$, $`X`$-trace, and $`X^3`$ — notation self explanatory, do cancel. We have illustrated the cancellation of the $`(3_L)^3`$ anomaly in the construction above. The $`(3_C)^3`$ anomaly is absent for we do require the QCD spectrum to be vectorlike. The nontrivial $`(3_L)^2X`$ anomaly contribution from the $`Q^a`$ triplets is canceled by that from the three families of leptonic triplets \[cf. Eqs.(1) and (12)\]. The cancellation of the remaining anomalies are quite nontrivial and take some algebra. The basic feature of cancellation among the three families persists. In particular the $`(3_L)^3`$, $`(3_L)^2X`$, and $`X^3`$ anomalies for each family is nonvanishing. The spectrum and anomaly cancellation structure share quite a bit of similarity with the 331 model331 , which is a major inspiration for our model construction. Apart from the little Higgs perspective incorporated in our new 331 model, the are other major difference between the two fermionic model spectra. The present fermionic spectrum is, arguably, phenomenologically more interesting — an aspect that we will then turn our discussion to.

Before going into the different phenomenological predictions of our new 331 model, however, we will discuss briefly the similarity in the group theoretical structure it shares with the original 331 model331 . This may shed some light on model-building. To put it in an oversimplifying statement, one can say that our model is nothing more than the original 331 model-building idea with a twist — a different enlargement of the quark representations dictated by our interest in accommodating the little Higgs. Taking the $`Q^a`$ triplet with the 331 construction scheme, the rest more or less follows. The nontrivial anomaly cancellation among the three families is like intrinsic to the basic strategy of the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ into $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X`$ embedding with new quarks. It works, largely because the $`3`$ in $`SU(3)_C`$ is the same as the number of SM families. The fact that such construction works, in either case, is quite amazing.222See, however, detailed analysis of the guage anomaly structure of the kind of SM embeddings in our forthcoming publication010 .

A major phenomenological different between our new model and the original 331 model is the fermionic content. The old 331 model has extra quarks of electric charges $`\frac{5}{3}`$ and $`\frac{4}{3}`$ as the only fermions beyond the three-family SM spectrum. In our model, there is the same number of extra quarks. They are, however, just some duplications of the existing $`t`$, and $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks — or rather two more down-sector quarks, without exotic electric charges. Recall that the extra top quark $`T`$ is demanded by the little Higgs mechanismKS . There has been many discussions in the literature about extra down-sector quarks from both theoreticaldown-t  point of view, as well as experimental in which one tries to explain the issues related to the $`b`$ quark $`Z`$-widthdown-e . Hence, the different quark content of the new model actually looks very desirable. In the new model, we have also extra leptonic states — three new neutral fermions $`N_e`$, $`N_\mu `$, and $`N_\tau `$, which are essentially singlet neutrinos. This, together with extra interactions of the SM neutrinos, may provide the base for interesting beyond SM properties of neutrinos. The gauge boson sector of course plays an important role in the little Higgs mechanism, and is also well discussed in that aspect in Ref.KS . While the original 331 model has doubly charged gauge bosons that may provide interesting experimental signature331 , the present model has no extra gauge bosons of exotic charges. The five extra gauge bosons are rather a pair of $`W^{}`$ and three extra $`Z^{}`$’s.

Next we look into the possible couplings of the scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ multiplets to the fermions. Such couplings are responsible for the SM Yukawa couplings, and the basic properties of the extra singlet quarks and neutrinos. Besides the top, the bottom quark has to get its Yukawa coupling from the $`\overline{b}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{}Q^a`$ term, hence the desired suppression in its mass (after electroweak symmetry breaking). For the first two families the $`1_L\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}\overline{3}_L`$ terms are naively allowed for all the down type quarks. Compare against Eq.(9), the couplings, if allowed, might need some fine-tuning to keep the down and strange quarks light. In fact, a splitting in mass between $`d`$ and $`D`$ as well as $`s`$ and $`S`$ is necessary for fitting SM phenomenology. This is an important issue to be investigated in detail. Similar to the case of the bottom quark, up and charm quark have their masses from couplings of the form $`1_L\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j\overline{3}_L`$ at lowest order. These structures are not enough to produce the hierarchical quark mass pattern. However, the little Higgs structure has considerations of a different global $`SU(3)`$ for each $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ (which is not respected by the gauge symmetry itself). One may consider a full description of these global symmetries for the full Lagrangian and see if they can be used to help getting a more viable phenomenology without employing un-natural small couplings for some of the terms here discussed admitted by the gauge symmetry along. As for the leptonic sector, the representation structure is family universal. The lowest order admissible coupling is of the form $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{}L`$ for $`\mathrm{}^+`$ and $`L`$ representing the singlet and triplet leptons. Neutrino mass constructions looks nontrivial, and may have to be considered at loop level. The above is limiting the scalar sector to the two $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s. One may consider adding extra $`SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X`$ to $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ symmetry breaking Higgs multiplets, which would likely change the picture. Care would have to be taken to ensure the little Higgs mechanism is preserved intact though. Our discussion on the phenomenology for the fermions has to stop here in this short letter.

In summary, we have presented a consistent fermionic sector model of $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X`$ with chiral fermions giving rise to quarks and leptons of the three-family SM plus some extra quarks and neutrinos that are singlets under electroweak symmetry. The extra quarks are a top-like quark and two down-sector quarks. Group theoretically speaking, the model is a simple twist of the old 331 model with the same gauge symmetry. The new model is however motivated by solving the hierarchy problem using the little Higgs mechanism, and seems also to be having more desirable phenomenological properties apart from that. It may provide, from the theoretical point of view, a TeV scale solution that address both the hierarchy problem and the flavor problem successfully; and may also gives feasible solution to the experimentally required beyond SM properties of neutrinos such as mass oscillation. In our opinion, more model-building of the type, and careful phenomenological studies of the successful models, deserve up most attention from particle physics.

NOTE: After posting the first draft of our manuscript, we came to realize that the 331 model fermion spectrum obtained here has actually been available in the literatureSVS . These earlier works having no connection with the little Higgs idea which motivates our rediscovery though. Accordingly, the scalar spectrum and Yukawa couplings discussed are not the same as that discussed here, as required by the little Higgs mechanism.

Our work is partially supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan, under grant number NSC91-2112-M-008-042.


text:
# The contribution of 𝒪(𝛼) radiative corrections to the renormalised anisotropy and application to general tadpole improvement schemes: addendum to “One–loop calculation of the renormalised anisotropy for improved anisotropic gluon actions on a lattice”

## I Introduction

The use of anisotropy is becoming an increasingly important and prevalent tool for improving lattice simulations. This stems from its utility in increasing the temporal or momentum resolution of correlation functions without the associated computational burden of reducing the lattice spacing in all directions.

Its use is complicated by the multiplicative renormalisation that occurs on the lattice. In a previous paper Drummond:2002yg  we argued that one–loop lattice perturbation theory can be used to calculate the renormalisation. We further demonstrated that a one–loop calculation of the renormalisation is sufficient to describe the measured value to an accuracy of around 3%. Such a determination is more than sufficient for most lattice calculations, including spectroscopy.

These calculations were carried out for the Wilson gauge action, and for a Symanzik improved action also. Results were presented for theories with and without tadpole improvement. The tadpole factors used were from mean links measured in Landau gauge. We have since received enquiries about the anisotropy renormalisation for other definitions of tadpole improvement. Our work does, in fact, cover such situations, but requires a slightly different presentation to make this clear.

In this note we clarify this issue. We illustrate the general applicability of our results by calculating the anisotropy for the aforementioned actions using generic tadpole improvement schemes, including the mean plaquette. We discuss also how this approach may be extended to actions further modified with, for instance, radiatively corrected improvement factors.

## II Method

For clarity, we briefly summarise here our method Drummond:2002yg . We require a quantity that can be described perturbatively, yet which is sensitive to the anisotropy. Using a 4–dimensional lattice twisted in the $`1,2`$–directions to provide a gauge invariant gluon mass luwe , we studied the infrared dispersion relation of the on–shell gluon in Feynman gauge. We consider the gluon mode (known as the $`A`$ meson in luwe ) which has momentum (Euclidean, and in the isotropic frame)

$$𝐩=(iE_0,m_0,0,p_3),\text{ }m_0=\frac{2\pi }{NL}.$$
(1)
$`N`$ is the number of colours, and $`L`$ the extent of the lattice in the twisted directions.

We restrict our discussion here to the case where the lattice spacing is smaller in the temporal direction only, by a factor of $`\chi `$. The on–shell condition for very small momentum in the (untwisted) 3–direction reads

$$\frac{1}{\chi }\left[\chi ^2F_t(E_0)+p_3^2+F_s(m_0)\right]=0.$$
(2)
For the Wilson action, $`F_s(m)4\mathrm{sin}^2(m/2)`$, and more complicated functions with the same continuum limit for (Symanzik) improved cases. For actions unimproved in the temporal direction, $`F_t(E)4\mathrm{sinh}^2(E/2)`$.

The one–loop contribution to the self energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, was calculated using lattice perturbation theory. This leads to a corresponding renormalisation of the anisotropy, $`\chi _R=\chi (1+\eta g^2)`$, and of the twisted mass, $`m_R=m_0+m_1g^2`$. These can be extracted by looking at the variation of the $`\mu =\nu =2`$ component of the self energy with $`p_3`$:

$$2\eta \left[p_3^2+F_s(m_0)\right]m_1F_s^{}(m_0)=\chi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}(𝐩).$$
(3)
There are two important points to note:

1. For the one–loop calculation, the on–shell condition is that derived from the tree level inverse propagator. The addition of radiative terms to the action, i.e. those of $`𝒪(g^2)`$ and above, does not change Eqn. (2).
2. The renormalisation of the anisotropy, $`\eta `$, is proportional to the terms in the one–loop self energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, that vary as $`p_3^2`$. Radiative terms of $`𝒪(g^2)`$ give counter–term insertions in the gluon propagator that yield additive corrections to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and hence additive corrections to $`\eta `$.

The counter–terms themselves consist of a coefficient, $`d`$, that is separately determined and a 2–point vertex function arising from the perturbative expansion of a combination of closed contours of links in the action. The contribution of the latter to the self energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{ct}}`$, leads to a change in the anisotropy renormalisation

$$\delta \eta =\eta _{\text{ct}}d.$$
(4)
It is clear that the results can be applied to a whole class of actions differing only in the choice of $`d`$. The obvious example is for choices of improvement factor in a tadpole improved action. Another interesting case is radiatively improved theories, where we might wish to change the criterion for improvement, and hence the $`𝒪(g^2)`$ couplings in the action.

In all these examples, the anisotropy does not need to be recalculated for a change in $`d`$ if have $`\eta _{\text{ct}}`$. This is an obvious benefit when we are, say, in the process of tuning radiative corrections to improved actions.

## III Results

In this section we present $`\eta _{\text{ct}}`$ for a Symanzik and tadpole improved action Drummond:2002yg . The original action contains parameters $`\beta _0`$, $`\chi _0`$ and one tadpole improvement factor, $`u_{s,t}`$, per spatial or temporal link respectively. With a rescaling

$$\beta =\frac{\beta _0}{u_s^3u_t},\chi =\chi _0\frac{u_s}{u_t},$$
(5)
we obtain

$`S_{SI}`$ $`(\beta ,\chi ,u_s)=\beta \chi {\displaystyle \underset{x,s}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}P_{s,t}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{ss,t}}{u_s^2}}\right\}`$
$`\beta `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\chi }}{\displaystyle \underset{x,s>s^{}}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}P_{s,s^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{ss,s^{}}}{u_s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{s^{}s^{},s}}{u_s^2}}\right\},`$ (6)
where $`P`$, $`R`$ are plaquettes and $`2\times 1`$ loops respectively, $`t`$ denotes the temporal direction, and $`s`$, $`s^{}`$ run over the spatial directions.

If the spatial tadpole factor may be written as $`u_s=1+d_sg^2+𝒪(g^4)`$, then the action can be expressed as a “bare” action, plus a counter–term:

$$S_{SI}(\beta ,\chi ,u_s)=S_{SI}(\beta ,\chi ,u_s=1)+g^2\mathrm{\Delta }S_{SI}+𝒪(g^4),$$
(7)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{SI}=`$ $`\beta d_s{\displaystyle \underset{x,s>s^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left\{\chi R_{ss,t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\chi }}\left(R_{ss,s^{}}+R_{s^{}s^{},s}\right)\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\beta S_{\text{ct}}.`$ (8)
We can see at this point what the result for $`\eta _{\text{ct}}`$ will be by looking at the terms in the action that will contribute via $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}`$, viz. terms in $`A_2p_3^2A_2`$. It is clear from Eqn. (6) that to obtain the correct continuum limit $`R_{ss,t}`$ must yield a term proportional to $`4\chi A_2p_0^2A_2`$ (using continuum notation), and $`R_{ss,s^{}}`$, $`R_{s^{}s^{},s}`$ both proportional to $`4A_2p_3^2A_2/\chi `$. For an on–shell propagator, $`\chi ^2p_0^2+p_3^2=0`$. Hence the Symanzik improvement $`\chi ^2R_{ss,t}+R_{ss,s^{}}+R_{s^{}s^{},s}4A_2p_3^2A_2`$. The counter–term $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{SI}`$ hence contributes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{ct}}=4/(6\chi )`$, or

$$\delta \eta (\chi )=\frac{d_s(\chi )}{3}.$$
(9)
We have numerically checked this. We expand $`S_{\text{ct}}`$ as a sum of vertex functions using a Python code Horgan\_in\_prep , and calculate the contribution to the one–loop self energy by summing over lattice modes for lattices of extent $`I=50`$ in the untwisted directions. The twisted extent was varied in the range $`4L32`$. The corresponding contribution to the anisotropy is extrapolated $`L\mathrm{}`$ as per Drummond:2002yg . The value for $`\eta _{\text{ct}}`$ is accurate to the rounding error (the $`6^{\text{th}}`$ decimal place), and has been calculated over a range of anisotropies $`1\chi 8`$.

As a further check, we test these results for the mean link in Landau gauge. The renormalisation of the anisotropy for the action without tadpole improvement is (Eqn. (98) of Drummond:2002yg )

$$\eta (\chi )=0.0602\frac{0.0656}{\chi }\frac{0.0237}{\chi ^2}.$$
(10)
The one–loop expression for the mean link in this gauge is Drummond:2002kp ; Drummond\_in\_prep

$$d_s(\chi )=0.1012+\frac{0.0895}{\chi }\frac{0.0513}{\chi ^2}\frac{0.0502\mathrm{log}\chi }{\chi }.$$
(11)
Combining Eqns. (9), (10), (11) yields the mean link improved result with a fit formula consistent with that given in Eqn. (99) of Drummond:2002yg .

## IV Application

An efficient procedure for carrying out a lattice calculation is thus as follows. It is more convenient to begin with the rescaled action, Eqn. (6), as there is no reference to $`u_t`$ (there being no Symanzik improvement in the temporal direction). Having selected $`\beta `$ and $`\chi `$, we vary $`u_s`$ until we have a self–consistent value (i.e. the measured expectation value $`u_s`$ in the chosen tadpole improvement scheme agrees with $`u_s`$ used in the action). We now measure the expectation value of $`u_t`$, and define its self–consistency through $`\beta _0=\beta u_s^3u_t`$ and $`\chi _0=\chi u_t/u_s`$. The tadpole improved coupling is $`g_0^26/\beta _0`$.

The one–loop renormalisation of the anisotropy, $`\eta (\chi )`$ is calculated using the formulae in the previous section. The actual ratio of length scales in different directions is then given to one–loop by

$$\chi _R=\chi (1+\eta (\chi )g_0^2).$$
(12)
For Landau gauge mean link tadpole scheme this prediction is accurate to within 3% Drummond:2002yg .

The self–consistent values of $`u_s`$ and $`u_t`$ can alternatively be calculated in perturbation theory using the chosen tadpole improvement scheme Drummond:2002kp . It is a tenet of tadpole improvement, however, that it is better to demand numerical self–consistency of $`u_{s,t}`$, rather than agreement of the perturbative expansion coefficients to a given order. We are then led to ask whether a similar “non–perturbative” definition $`d_s=(1u_s^2)/(2g_0^2)`$ (Eqn. (6) suggests this form) might improve the anisotropy calculation. We do not find this to be the case; the resulting $`\chi _R`$ over-estimates the measured value by around 6%.

It is apparent now from where the dependence of $`\chi _R`$ on the choice of tadpole improvement arises. The variation of the one–loop factor $`d_s`$ between plaquette and Landau mean link improvement schemes is small. Thus for given $`\chi `$, $`\eta `$ shows little variation with the choice of scheme.

The tadpole improvement parameters for these two schemes are different, however, but the difference is only apparent from simulation results or in two and higher loop perturbation theory. For this reason, if we are simulating the action with chosen parameters $`(\beta _0,\chi _0,u_{s,t})`$, the value of the rescaled $`\chi `$ is tadpole improvement scheme dependent. The result is that the majority of the scheme dependence of $`\chi _R`$ arises from the fact that it is the rescaled $`\chi `$ that is used to extract $`\eta `$, rather than from the variation of $`d_s`$ itself.

## V Conclusions

We have presented a brief addendum to our previous paper Drummond:2002yg  on the one–loop perturbative calculation of the anisotropy in lattice gauge theories using the on–shell gluon dispersion relation. We have demonstrated that the anisotropy renormalisations obtained apply to actions with arbitrary choice of tadpole improvement scheme. We re–presented our data to make this explicit.

We pointed out a generalisation of our method. The additive contributions to the anisotropy of counter–terms in the action of $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ and above may be calculated separately. This is possible as they do not affect the tree level on–shell condition, and because the one–loop anisotropy renormalisation coefficient is related linearly to the first order gluon self energy.

When varying the radiative coefficients, the change in the renormalisation of the anisotropy is then simply given by a change of weighting in a sum of previously calculated perturbative contributions This has obvious benefits during, for instance, the tuning of radiative corrections to improved lattice actions.

###### Acknowledgements.

A. Hart is supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship.


text:
# On The Progenitor of the Type II-Plateau Supernova 2003gd in Messier 741footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archive of the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.

## 1. Introduction

Determining which stars give rise to supernovae (SNe) is at the heart of SN research. The main obstacle is that a SN leaves few traces of the progenitor star. Only a small handful of historical SNe (SN 1961V \[Zwicky 1964, 1965\], SN 1978K \[Ryder et al. 1993\], SN 1987A \[e.g., Gilmozzi et al. 1987; Sonneborn, Altner, & Kirshner 1987\], SN 1993J \[Aldering, Humphreys, & Richmond 1994; Cohen, Darling, & Porter 1995\], and SN 1997bs \[Van Dyk et al. 1999, 2000\]) have had precursors identified. Additionally, it should be noted that these five SNe were all at least somewhat unusual. Van Dyk, Li, & Filippenko (2003a) recently attempted the direct identification of the progenitors of 16 relatively normal Type II and Type Ib/c SNe, using archival images from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). They may have identified the progenitors of the Type II SNe 1999br and 1999ev, the Type Ib SNe 2001B and 2001is, and the Type Ic SN 1999bu. Subsequent follow-up to the tentative identification of the progenitor of the Type II SN 2001du, using an HST image of the SN itself, resulted in an upper limit to the progenitor’s mass (Van Dyk, Li, & Filippenko 2003b; see also Smartt et al. 2003a).

Here we attempt to identify the progenitor of a recent and relatively nearby Type II-plateau (II-P) event. SN 2003gd was visually discovered by Evans (2003) on June 12.82 UT at about 13.2 mag, and about 20″ east and 150″ south of the nucleus of Messier 74 (M74; NGC 628). McNaught (2003a) confirmed the discovery on CCD images and measured an accurate optical position for the SN of $`\alpha `$(J2000) = $`1^h36^m42\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}65`$, $`\delta `$(J2000) = $`+15\mathrm{°}44\mathrm{}19\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}9`$ (McNaught 2003b). Garnavich & Bass (2003a) obtained near-infrared (0.85–2.4 $`\mu `$m) spectra of SN 2003gd on June 13.46 UT; the strong, broad Paschen-line emission in the $`J`$-band order of the spectrum led them to classify the SN as Type II. This classification has since been confirmed by Kotak, Meikle, & Smartt (2003) and by Phillips (2003), both groups suggesting that the SN was discovered at an age of $``$1–2 months. From ground-based images, Garnavich & Bass (2003b) place a limit on the progenitor star brightness of $`R>24`$ mag at four months before discovery.

M74 was also the host to the peculiar Type Ic SN 2002ap (e.g., Mazzali et al. 2002; Leonard et al. 2002c; Foley et al. 2003). Both Sharina, Karachentsev, & Tikhonov (1996) and Sohn & Davidge (1996) measured a distance to M74, based on photometry of the brightest stars in the galaxy. Their consistent results indicate a true (extinction-corrected) distance modulus $`\mu _0=29.3`$ mag, corresponding to a distance of about 7.2 Mpc. Lacking any additional distance information, we assume this distance throughout this paper.

## 2. Analysis

Pre-SN archival HST WFPC2 images containing the SN site were obtained by program GO-9676, using several different pointings, on 2002 August 25 and 28 UT in the bands F606W and F300W, for total exposure times of 3100 s and 3000 s, respectively. A summary of the available HST data is given in Table 1. Recent multi-band images of SN 2002ap were obtained by GO-9114 in 2003 January using the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), but, unfortunately for us, these were made with the High-Resolution Camera (HRC). The HRC’s field-of-view is too small, and the displacement of SN 2002ap from SN 2003gd is too large, for these images to be useful in detecting the progenitor. (Furthermore, at the time of this writing, these images were still proprietary.)

It is absolutely essential to locate the SN site in the HST images with high astrometric precision. From a $`V`$-band image obtained with the Las Campanas Observatory 1.0-m telescope and kindly provided by M. Hamuy, we have measured a precise position for the SN of $`\alpha `$(J2000.0) = $`1^h36^m42\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}67`$, $`\delta `$(J2000.0) = $`+15\mathrm{°}44\mathrm{}19\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}7`$, with a total uncertainty of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$, using the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) as the astrometric reference. Note the excellent agreement with the position measured by NcNaught (2003b); we adopt the average of these two measurements for the SN position, i.e., $`\alpha `$(J2000.0) = $`1^h36^m42\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}66`$, $`\delta `$(J2000.0) = $`+15\mathrm{°}44\mathrm{}19\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}8`$. Position data for the SN are summarized in Table 2.

Applying the astrometric method described by Van Dyk et al. (2003a) to a wmosaic of the HST F606W coadded image pair, U8IXCY02M and U8IXCY03M, utilizing a deep $`V`$-band image of M74 obtained at the Palomar 1.5-m telescope (see Foley et al. 2003) and again adopting 2MASS as a reference, we are able to isolate the position of the SN on the mosaic to $`\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}6`$. This uncertainty is the SN absolute position uncertainty ($`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$), the uncertainty in the astrometric grid applied to the Palomar image ($`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4`$), and the uncertainty in the grid further applied to the HST mosaic ($`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4`$), as well as the relative difference between the absolute position measurements ($`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}1`$) and the relative accuracy of the 2MASS astrometry ($`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}1`$), all added in quadrature. The SN site is located on the WF2 chip, and the position uncertainty, at $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}1`$ pixel-1 for the WF chips, therefore corresponds to $`\pm `$6 WF pixels.

Since the various pointings are difficult to properly align, both within and between the two bands, we elected to apply the photometry routine HSTphot (Dolphin 2000a, 2000b) to the images in each band in separate units, and to subsequently combine the results. (In fact, we were unable to derive the necessary offsets between the two F300W exposures U8IXCA04M and U8IXCA05M, and the third, U8IXCA03M, as a result of the low signal-to-noise ratio in all of these images.) HSTphot automatically accounts for WFPC2 point-spread function (PSF) variations and charge-transfer effects across the chips, zeropoints, aperture corrections, etc. In this case the HSTphot output was in the flight magnitude system. In Figure 1 we show the SN environment in the F606W band. Two sources, A and B, are detected by HSTphot very near or within the error circle.

Table 3 lists the photometry in the F606W band for Stars A and B. The F606W magnitudes are the uncertainty-weighted average of the photometry performed on the U8IXCY01M + U8IXCY02M + U8IXCY03M image trio and on the U8IXCA01M + U8IXCA02M image pair. Unfortunately, the F300W exposures were not sensitive enough, since Stars A and B were not detected in the F300W images, to $`m_{\mathrm{F300W}}23.8`$ mag (3$`\sigma `$).

Two other stars are seen in Figure 1 about $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$ to the northeast of the error circle edge; the easternmost one has $`m_{\mathrm{F606W}}=25.09\pm 0.08`$ mag, and the westernmost one has $`m_{\mathrm{F606W}}=25.79\pm 0.23`$ mag (it appears to be somewhat blended). Another two stars are seen near Star A, one $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4`$ due east, and one $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}3`$ due south; the eastern one has $`m_{\mathrm{F606W}}=25.97\pm 0.12`$ mag, and the southern one has $`m_{\mathrm{F606W}}=26.02\pm 0.16`$ mag. Several fainter sources are also seen within the error circle in Figure 1, but they are undetected by HSTphot.

## 3. Discussion

We can attempt to estimate the masses of Stars A and B and therefore comment on the plausibility of each as the likely SN progenitor. For this we need an estimate for the stars’ color, as well as the reddening toward the SN, and the metallicity of the SN environment. From the F300W images, limits on the color $`m_{\mathrm{F300W}}m_{\mathrm{F606W}}`$ are $`1.6`$ mag for Star A and $`2.8`$ for Star B. Using the transformations from flight system to Johnson-Cousins magnitudes via SYNPHOT, applied to the Bruzual Spectral Synthetic Atlas (see Van Dyk, Filippenko, & Li 2002), this translates to $`UV0.9`$ mag for Star A. The flight system color for Star B is too blue to realistically transform to a standard color, but it is likely $`UV>1.5`$ mag.

Additional color information for both progenitor candidates can be obtained from a high-quality $`I`$-band image (seeing $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}9`$) obtained with the 2.6-m Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT; see Larsen & Richtler 1999), archived and made available online by NED222NED is the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu.. Figure 2 shows the SN environment, which is approximately the same field shown in Figure 1. Matching the $`I`$-band and F606W images was not trivial, even after geometrically transforming one image relative to the other, due to the differences in pixel scale and resolution. However, two faint objects are seen in Figure 2 very near the positions of both Stars A and B (the identification of the counterpart to Star B on the $`I`$-band image is less certain than that for Star A). Assuming these are the $`I`$-band counterparts to Stars A and B, this implies that these two stars are red. Using PSF-fitting photometry in DAOPHOT/ALLSTAR (Stetson 1987, 1992) within IRAF333IRAF (Image Reduction and Analysis Facility) is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. and, calibrating this image using the comparison stars in Foley et al. (2003), we find the $`I`$-band magnitudes for the two stars listed in Table 3. Applying the transformations derived from SYNPHOT we convert $`m_{\mathrm{F606W}}I`$ for both stars to $`VI`$, and $`m_{\mathrm{F606W}}`$ to $`V`$ (for such red stars, $`V`$ is $`0.8`$ mag fainter than $`m_{\mathrm{F606W}}`$); these values, and their estimated uncertainties, are also listed in Table 3.

We have obtained $`BVRI`$ images of SN 2003gd on a number of epochs with the Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope (KAIT; see Li et al. 2000; Filippenko et al. 2001). Again, we have calibrated these images using the comparison stars for SN 2002ap in Foley et al. (2003). The SN photometry is listed in Table 4. The SN was already quite red at the time of discovery. Unfortunately, the SN color is subject to a degeneracy between the SN age and the reddening. We can try to break this degeneracy through a comparison with the very well-studied Type II-P SN 1999em in NGC 1637 (Hamuy et al. 2001; see also Leonard et al. 2002a and Elmhamdi et al. 2003).

In Figure 3 we show the $`BVRI`$ light curves of SN 2003gd and for comparison the light curves of SN 1999em, adjusted to the true distance modulus of M74. No reddening correction is made to the light curve of SN 1999em to match that of SN 2003gd. (However, we have adjusted the light curves of both SNe in time to find the best match.) Similarly, in Figure 4 we show the color evolution of SN 2003gd, and for comparison, that of SN 1999em, with both SNe corrected for reddening \[$`E(BV)=0.1`$ mag for SN 1999em, Leonard et al. 2002c; $`E(BV)=0.13`$ mag for SN 2003gd, see below\]. Both figures imply rather convincingly that SN 2003gd is also a SN II-P and that it was quite old at the time of discovery (near the end of the plateau phase of the light curves). Similar to SN 1999em, SN 2003gd suffers relatively low reddening, which is also supported by the lack of interstellar Na I D absorption, as well as low continuum polarization seen in spectra of SN 2003gd we have obtained at the Lick 3-m and Keck 10-m telescopes. Although the photometry for the two SNe II-P agrees quite well during the plateau phase, it is most striking how much fainter SN 2003gd is relative to SN 1999em in the late-time nebular phase. The faint nebular-phase tail and large post-plateau drop may be suggestive of low ejected 56Ni mass, similar to the subluminous SNe II-P SN 1997D and 1999br (Benetti et al. 2001; Zampieri et al. 2003). A more detailed study of SN 2003gd is clearly warranted.

From the plateau we estimate an age for SN 2003gd of $`87\pm 3`$ d on June 17 UT, placing the date of explosion at about March 17 UT, consistent with the range of explosion dates between February and April suggested by Garnavich & Bass (2003b). Additionally, we estimate the total reddening to SN 2003gd as $`E(BV)=0.13\pm 0.03`$ mag \[the Galactic reddening toward M74 is itself quite low, $`E(BV)=0.07`$ mag; Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis 1998; and NED\].

In Figure 5 we show the absolute $`V`$ magnitude and $`UV`$ color limits from the HST photometry for the two progenitor candidates, corrected for reddening to the SN, assuming the Cardelli, Clayton, & Mathis (1989) reddening law, and adjusted for the true M74 distance modulus. SN 2003gd occurred about 161″ southeast of the M74 nucleus, or at $`R/R_{25}0.5`$. At this nuclear distance, van Zee et al. (1998) represent the relative oxygen abundance as log(O/H) + 12 $``$ 9 dex. The metallicity in the SN 2003gd environment, then, is possibly $``$1.5 times greater than solar (where the solar O/H abundance is 8.8 dex; Grevesse & Sauval 1998). In Figure 5 we therefore show for comparison the model stellar evolutionary tracks for a range of masses from Lejeune & Schaerer (2001), assuming enhanced mass loss for the most massive stars and a metallicity $`Z=0.04`$ for the SN environment.

From the positions of Stars A and B in Figure 5, we cannot rule out that the SN progenitor was a blue star. However, except for the most massive stars, which may evolve back to the blue toward the end of their lives (such as seen for the 40 $`M_{}`$ model), we do not expect SN II progenitors to generally occupy this color region \[$`(UV)_01`$ to $`2`$ mag\], since lower-mass stars are still on (or are just barely off) the main sequence and therefore not sufficiently evolved. Also, we expect SN II-P progenitors to be red supergiants, since both the optical P-Cygni spectral line profiles and the plateau phase of the SN light curve (arising from a hydrogen recombination wave in the envelope) require such extensive hydrogen envelopes. Furthermore, the lack of radio emission from SN 2003gd (C. J. Stockdale et al. 2003, private communication) implies a paucity of circumstellar matter, providing additional evidence that most of the progenitor’s matter was still contained in the star itself at the time of explosion.

In Figure 6 we show the absolute magnitude and color for Stars A and B from the combined HST and NOT photometry, again corrected for reddening to the SN and adjusted for the true M74 distance modulus. For comparison we again show the Lejeune & Schaerer (2001) evolutionary tracks, as in Figure 5 (for $`9M_{}`$ we also show the track corresponding to solar metallicity, $`Z=0.02`$; as can be seen, little difference exists in the red between the tracks of different metallicity). From Figure 6 it appears that both stars are red supergiants, and that Star A had an initial (zero-age main sequence) mass $`M_{\mathrm{ZAMS}}8`$–9 $`M_{}`$. The fainter Star B appears to have had an initial mass $`M_{\mathrm{ZAMS}}5M_{}`$, which is formally below the theoretical lower limit for core-collapse SNe ($`8M_{}`$; e.g., Woosley & Weaver 1986).

One of the two stars is most likely the progenitor: the F606W detection limit, $`m_{\mathrm{F606W}}=27.3`$ mag (3$`\sigma `$), when corrected for the true M74 distance modulus and assuming stars of the same reddening-corrected $`VI`$ as Stars A and B, corresponds to $`M_{V_0}1.6`$ mag and therefore to initial masses well below the core-collapse limit. Thus, we can probably rule out that the progenitor is not detected in the F606W image. Although Star A is farther from the SN position than Star B, and just outside the edge of the error circle, we consider Star A to be the most likely progenitor candidate, based on its estimated initial mass. From Figure 2 it also appears to be the most plausible candidate, being the brightest object in the $`I`$ band within the SN’s larger, $``$1″ radius, environment. (Although of comparable brightness to Stars A and B in F606W, the four other stars mentioned in § 2 which are outside, but near, the error circle do not have clearly identifiable counterparts on the $`I`$-band image, implying that these stars are bluer than Stars A and B and can probably be discounted as progenitor candidates.) The estimate for the SN 2003dg progenitor mass is lower than the limits derived for the nearby SNe II-P 1999gi ($`15_3^{+5}M_{}`$; Leonard et al. 2002b) and 1999em ($`20\pm 5M_{}`$; Leonard et al. 2003), but is consistent with that for the SN II-P 2001du ($`13_4^{+7}M_{}`$; Van Dyk et al. 2003b). Our estimates for the absolute brightness and initial mass for the SN 2003gd progenitor are consistent with those reported by Smartt, Maund, & Hendry (2003b).

## 4. Conclusions

Examining HST archival WFPC2 images of the Type II-P SN 2003gd in M74 obtained before explosion, we have isolated two possible SN progenitor stars. Although we cannot exclude a blue SN progenitor, it is more likely that the progenitor was red. This is further supported by the brightness of the two stars on a ground-based archival $`I`$-band image. SN 2003gd is an old SN II-P, and we have estimated that its reddening is quite low, $`E(BV)=0.13`$ mag, similar to that of the well-studied SN II-P 1999em. We estimate that the more likely candidate of the two stars had an initial mass $`M_{\mathrm{ZAMS}}8`$–9 $`M_{}`$ which, together with mass limits derived for other SNe II-P, suggests that such SNe II-P arise from massive stars at the lower extreme of the possible mass range for core collapse.

It would be most fruitful to recover the SN in multiple bands with HST at high spatial resolution, preferably with ACS, when the SN has significantly dimmed. This will allow us to pinpoint the SN’s exact location on the preexplosion images and thus be definitive about the progenitor’s identification. If our proposed candidate is confirmed, it will be only the sixth SN progenitor ever directly identified. Additionally, the multiband imaging of the stars in the environment of the fading SN would provide possible further constraints on the age and mass of the progenitor star, based on the characteristics of its surviving neighbors.

We thank the referee, Sydney van den Bergh, for useful comments that improved the paper. We also thank Andrew Dolphin for assistance with HSTphot, and Doug Leonard for illuminating discussions regarding the photometric evolution of SN 2003gd and other SNe II-P. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the IPAC/California Institute of Technology, funded by NASA and NSF. This research also utilizes the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with NASA. The work of A.V.F.’s group at UC Berkeley is supported by NSF grant AST-0307894, as well as by NASA grants AR-9953, AR-9529, and AR-8754 from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. KAIT was made possible by generous donations from Sun Microsystems, Inc., the Hewlett-Packard Company, AutoScope Corporation, Lick Observatory, the National Science Foundation, the University of California, and the Sylvia and Jim Katzman Foundation.