text:
# Monomial discrete valuations in 𝑘[[𝐗]]

## 1 Preliminaries.

###### Remark 1.1.

In this remark we remember some definitions and results given by I. Kaplansky in .

Let $`K`$ be a valued field, let $`v`$ be the valuation.Let $`L`$ be an extension of $`K`$ and $`v^{}`$ a valuation that extends $`v`$. We say that the extension $`KL`$ is immediate if the values group and the residue field of $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ are the same. We say that a valued field $`K`$ is maximal if it doesn’t admit proper immediate extensions.

A well ordered set $`\{a_i\}K`$, without last element in $`K`$, is called pseudo-convergent if

$$v(a_ja_i)<v(a_ka_j)$$

for all $`i<j<k`$. Easily we have that, if $`\{a_i\}`$ is pseudo-convergent, then $`v(a_ja_i)=v(a_{i+1}a_i),i<j`$. So we can use the abbreviation $`\omega _i`$ for $`v(a_ja_i)`$, with $`j>i`$. Let us note that $`\{\omega _i\}`$ is an increasing set of elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

An element $`aK`$ is called limit of the pseudo-convergent set $`\{a_i\}`$ if $`v(aa_i)=\omega _i`$ for all $`i`$.

 prove the following results:

* If $`KL`$ is an immediate extension, then every element of $`LK`$ is a limit of any pseudo-convergent subset of $`K`$ without limit in $`K`$.
* A valued field $`K`$ is maximal if and only if there exists a limit for all its pseudo-convergent subsets.

In , Krull shown the existence of, at least, one maximal immediate extension for all valued field. Therefore, if $`\widehat{K}`$ is the completion of $`K`$ by the valuation $`v`$ and $`\widehat{v}`$ is the unique valuation of $`\widehat{K}`$ that extends $`v`$, then $`K\widehat{K}`$ is an immediate extension and $`\widehat{K}`$ is a maximal valued field.

Kaplansky shown the unicity of the maximal immediate extension of a valued field $`K`$ that satisfy a certain condition, that he calls hypothesis A. In the case of zero characteristic this hypothesis A is empty.

Finally,  gives an useful structure theorem for all maximal valued field. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a field and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ an ordered abelian group, the set of all formal series

$$a_it^{\alpha _i}\text{ con }a_i\mathrm{\Delta },\alpha _i\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{ y }\{\alpha _i\}\text{ well ordered},$$

is a field with the usual sum and times. We shall denote this field by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t^\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. In $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t^\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ we can consider the valuation $`\nu _t`$ given by

$$\nu _t\left(\underset{i1}{}a_it^{\alpha _i}\right)=\alpha _1\text{ with }a_10.$$

Krull shown in  that, with this valuation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t^\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a maximal field.

###### Theorem 1.2.

(Kaplansky, 1942) Let $`K`$ be a maximal valued field with values group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and residue field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that satisfies the hypothesis A. Then $`K`$ is analytically isomorphic to the power series field $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t^\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

### 1.1 Notation and definitions.

Let $`K=k((𝐗))=k((X_1,\mathrm{},X_n))`$ be the quotient field of the formal power series ring $`R=k[[𝐗]]=k[[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]]`$.

###### Remark 1.3.

* We shall write all series $`fR`$ as $`f=_{A_0^n}f_A𝐗^A`$, where, if $`A=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$, then $`𝐗^A`$ means $`X_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}X_n^{a_n}`$. We shall say

$$(f)=\{A_0^nf_A0\}.$$
* In $`^m`$ we’ll consider the lexicographic order, it’ll be denoted by $`_{\mathrm{lex}}`$. This is a total order for the group structure.
* Let $`0<mn`$ be an integer and

$$L=\{B_1,\mathrm{},B_n\}_0^m\{0\}$$

such that $`L`$ is a generator system of $`^m`$. Each monomial $`𝐗^A`$ of $`R`$ has an element of $`_0^m`$ associated, that is called its $`L`$-degree, that is

$$\mathrm{degree}_L(𝐗^A)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_iB_i,A=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n).$$

###### Definition 1.4.

Let $`0<mn`$ be an integer and

$$L=\{B_1,\mathrm{},B_n\}_0^m\{0\}$$

such that $`L`$ is a generator system of $`^m`$. Let $`v:R^m\{\mathrm{}\}`$ be the function such that $`v(0)=\mathrm{}`$ and

$$v(f)=\underset{_{\mathrm{lex}}}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{\mathrm{degree}_L(𝐗^A)A(f)\right\},$$

with $`f0`$. The extension of $`v`$ to $`K|k`$, which values group is $`^m`$, is a rank $`m`$ discrete valuation, called monomial valuation associated to $`L`$.

Throughout this work, let $`v`$ be a rank $`m`$ discrete valuation of $`K|k`$ centered in $`R`$. Let $`R_v`$, $`𝔪_v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=^m`$ be the ring, the maximal ideal and the values group of the valuation $`v`$, respectively. We’ll denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v=R_v/𝔪_v`$ to the residue field of $`v`$. Since  we know that the dimension of $`v`$ (the transcendence degree of $`k\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$) is lesser or equal than $`nm`$. We shall suppose that the dimension of $`v`$ is the maximum, $`nm`$.

So in this work valuation means rank $`m`$ discrete valuation of $`K|k`$ centered in $`R`$ and dimension $`nm`$.

###### Remark 1.5.

Let $`\widehat{K}`$ be a maximal immediate extension of $`K`$. Since  we can suppose that $`\widehat{K}`$ is the completion of $`K`$ with respect of $`v`$. Let $`\widehat{v}`$ the only extension of $`v`$ to $`\widehat{K}`$. We know that there exists an analytic isomorphism of $`\widehat{K}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v(t^\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, so its restriction to the ring $`R`$ gives an injective homomorphism

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \phi :R=k[[𝐗]]& & \mathrm{\Delta }_v(t^\mathrm{\Gamma })\hfill \\ \hfill X_i& & _{j1}a_{i,j}t^{\alpha _{i,j}}\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`a_{i,j}\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$ y $`\{\alpha _{i,j}\}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ well ordered.

If we consider the extension of $`\phi `$ to the quotient field $`K`$ and the valuation $`\nu _t`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v(t^\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ previously defined, then $`v=\nu _t\phi `$.

The purpose of this work is to construct $`\phi `$ explicitly, in order to obtain a parametric equation of $`v`$ and, in consequence, a construction of the residue field of $`v`$, as an extension of the field $`k`$.

Therefore we’ll prove that for all valuation $`v`$ of $`K|k`$, there exists an immediate extension $`KL=k((𝐘))`$ such that the valuation that extends $`v`$ is monomial.

In other words: Any valuation $`v`$ comes from a monomial valuation. This result generalizes the obtained in  for rank one discrete valuations of $`k((X_1,X_2))`$.

### 1.2 Monoidal Transformation and immediate extension.

Let $`v`$ be a valuation of $`K|k`$. Let us consider the next monoidal transformation in $`K`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill k((𝐗))& & L=k((𝐘))\hfill \\ \hfill X_i& & Y_i\text{ if }i2\hfill \\ \hfill X_2& & Y_2Y_1\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`v(X_2)>_{\mathrm{lex}}v(X_1)`$. Then we have the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1.6.

With these conditions, the extension $`KL`$ is immediate.

Proof. Let us consider the rings $`R=k[[𝐗]]`$ and $`S=k[[𝐘]]`$, and the diagram

Where $`\psi `$ is the natural extension of $`\phi `$ to $`L`$, i.e. $`\psi (Y_2)=\phi (X_2)/\phi (X_1)`$.

If $`\psi `$ is injective, then $`v^{}=\nu _t\psi `$ is a valuation of $`L`$ that extends $`v`$ and both has the same values group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the same residue field $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$.

So we can suppose, by contradiction, that $`\psi `$ is not injective. Let $`𝔭`$ be the implicit ideal $`\mathrm{ker}(\psi )`$ and $`L^{}`$ the quotient field of the ring

$$\frac{k[[𝐘]]}{𝔭}.$$

Clearly the restriction of $`\psi `$ to $`L^{}`$ is injective and its composition with $`\nu _t`$ define a valuation, let us put $`w_1`$. So the extension $`KL^{}`$ is immediate.

Let $`w_2`$ be the valuation $`𝔭`$–ádic of $`L`$. This is a discrete rank one valuation.

The composition of both valuations, let us put $`w`$, is a discrete rank $`m+1`$ valuation of $`L|k`$ whose residue field is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$. Then we have

$$\mathrm{rank}(w)+dim(w)=n+1>dimk[[𝐘]].$$

Since Abhyankar’s theorem (, Theorem 1, p. 330), we know

$$\mathrm{rank}(w)+dim(w)dimk[[𝐘]],$$

so there is a contradiction. ∎

###### Remark 1.7.

Here we are used the existence of such injective homomorphism, proved by Kaplansky . Later we’ll give an explicit construction of $`\psi `$. There isn’t circular reasoning.

The following example shows that the condition of maximal dimension of $`v`$ is necessary.

###### Example 1.8.

Let $`R=[[X_1,X_2,X_3]]`$ and $`K`$ its quotient field. Let us consider the injective homomorphism

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \phi :R& & (u)[[t]]\hfill \\ \hfill X_1& & t\hfill \\ \hfill X_2& & ut^2\hfill \\ \hfill X_3& & e^{ut}1.\hfill \end{array}$$

The composition of $`\phi `$ (really its extension to the quotient fields) with the usual order function $`\nu _t`$ of $`(u)((t))`$ is a rank one discrete valuation of $`K`$, named $`v`$. The dimension of $`v`$ is 1, the transcendence degree of the extension $`(u)`$.

If we make the monoidal transformation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill R=[[X_1,X_2,X_3]]& & S=[[Y_1,Y_2,Y_3]]\hfill \\ \hfill X_i& & Y_i\text{ if }i=1,3\hfill \\ \hfill X_2& & Y_2Y_1\hfill \end{array}$$

Then we have an homomorfism

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \phi :S& & (u)[[t]]\hfill \\ \hfill X_1& & t\hfill \\ \hfill X_2& & ut\hfill \\ \hfill X_3& & e^{ut}1.\hfill \end{array}$$

that is not injective.

## 2 Constructing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$.

### 2.1 Basis of a subgroup of $`^m`$.

There are well known procedures to compute a basis of a subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^m`$ knowing any set of generators. In this subsection we describe an algorithm that will be very useful in order to prepare the valuation.

Let $`\{A_1,\mathrm{},A_n\}`$ be the set of generators of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^m`$, with $`A_i>_{\mathrm{lex}}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ for all $`i`$. We can suppose, without lost of generality, that $`A_i_{\mathrm{lex}}A_ji<j`$. Let $`A=(a_{i,j})_{n\times n}`$ be the matrix whose rows are the elements $`A_i`$.

We shall consider two transformations with the rows of the matrix $`A`$:

(1) $`F_{i,j}(q)`$: To change the row $`i`$ by itself plus $`q`$ times the row $`j`$, with $`q`$.

(2) To interchange rows.

Clearly the group generated by the rows of the matrix $`A`$ is equal to the group generated by the rows of any transformation of $`A`$.

###### Remark 2.1.

Algorithm. The the matrix $`A`$ has the following echelon form

Let $`j`$ be the first column different of $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in $`A`$, let $`i`$ be the first such that $`a_{i,j}0`$. Then we shall say that $`a_{i,j}`$ is a pivot.

How $`A_i_{\mathrm{lex}}A_li<l`$, clearly $`a_{i,j}a_{l,j}i<l`$. Let us put $`a_{l,j}=q_la_{i,j}+r_l`$, by making the integer Euclidean division of $`a_{l,j}`$ by $`a_{i,j}`$.

We’ll apply the following procedure with the first step, that is perfectly exportable to the other steps:

* For each row $`l`$, with $`i<ln`$, we make the following transformation:

+ If $`r_l0`$ we do $`F_{l,i}(q_l)`$. The new row $`l`$, that we denote by $`A_l`$ again, is such that $`A_l<_{\mathrm{lex}}A_i`$ and $`0<a_{l,j}<a_{i,j}`$.
    + If $`r_l=0`$ there are two possible situations:

    - $`A_lq_lA_i>_{\mathrm{lex}}\mathrm{𝟎}`$: In this case we make too the transformation $`F_{l,i}(q_l)`$. The new row $`l`$ is such that $`A_l<_{\mathrm{lex}}A_i`$ and $`a_{l,j}=0`$. So, after a reordering $`A_l`$ raises a step.
        - $`A_lq_lA_i_{\mathrm{lex}}\mathrm{𝟎}`$: Then we make the change

        $`F_{l,i}(1q_l)`$. The new row $`l`$, that we denote $`A_l`$ again, is such that $`A_l_{\mathrm{lex}}A_i`$ and $`m_{l,j}=m_{i,j}`$. Let us remark that if $`q_l=1`$ then $`A_l=A_i`$, because we have suppose at begin that $`A_i_{\mathrm{lex}}A_l`$.
* After these transformations we reorder the rows. If every row of the first step of the matrix are equal, then we raise a step and we begin with the procedure.In other case, we apply again this algorithm.

Clearly we are doing the Euclidean algorithm in order to compute the maximal common divisor of the elements $`\{a_{i,j},\mathrm{},a_{n,j}\}`$. Let $`p_j`$ be the maximal common divisor. By a finite number of transformations we obtain a transformed matrix, that we denote again by $`A`$, such that the pivot is equal to $`p_j`$ and the last one divides all $`a_{l,j}`$ with $`li`$.

We have just arrived to situation I.b), so, by a finite number of transformations, necessarily we must obtain a new matrix $`A`$ where all the rows down the pivot $`a_{i,j}=p_j`$ are equals to $`A_i`$.

Hence, by applying this algorithm for each step of the matrix, we obtain a matrix $`B`$ with only con $`s`$ different rows $`B_{i_1},\mathrm{},B_{i_s}`$ whose pivots are $`p_{j_1},\mathrm{},p_{j_s}`$. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is isomorphic to $`p_{j_1}\times \mathrm{}\times p_{j_s}`$ and $`\{B_{i_1},\mathrm{},B_{i_s}\}`$ is a basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$.

The algorithm described in this section allows us to prove the following lemma, that we are going to use frequently for preparing our valuation conveniently.

###### Lemma 2.2.

With the usual conditions over $`K=k((𝐗))`$ and $`v`$, rank $`m`$ discrete valuation, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is the subgroup generated by the values of the elements $`X_i`$, the we can find, by a finite number of monoidal transformations and interchanges of variables, an immediate extension $`L=k((𝐘))`$ of $`K`$ such that each $`Y_i`$ has the value in a basis $`\{B_1,\mathrm{},B_s\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$.

Proof. We have to apply the precedent algorithm to the matrix of the values $`v(X_i)`$. Where $`F_{l,i}(q_l)`$ means “to apply $`q_l`$ monoidal transformations such that $`X_lY_lY_i`$”, and reorder rows means “to reorder variables according to its values”. ∎

### 2.2 Preparing $`v`$.

As usually, we begin with a rank $`mn`$ discrete valuation $`v`$ of $`K|k`$, centered in the ring $`R=k[[𝐗]]`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=^m`$, $`R_v`$ and $`𝔪_v`$ be the values group, the ring and the maximal ideal of the valuation. $`v`$, respectively. We shall denote, as usual, by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$ to the residue field of the valuation.

We’ll suppose that the extension $`k\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$ is transcendent pure of degree $`dimv=nm`$.

First, we apply the lemma 2.2 to obtain an immediate extension $`L=k((𝐘))`$ of $`K`$ such that the set of values of the elements $`Y_i`$ is a basis $`\{B_1,\mathrm{},B_s\}`$ of the subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ generated by the values of the elements $`X_i`$.

By convenience we reorder the elements $`Y_i`$ in such way that the first $`s`$ elements takes all the values of the basis (i.e. $`v(Y_i)=B_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$).

###### Remark 2.3.

Let $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ be such that $`A=r_1B_1+\mathrm{}+r_sB_s`$, then we shall denote by $`R_A=(r_1,\mathrm{},r_s,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ to the $`n`$–uple such that $`v(𝐘^{R_A})=A`$.

### 2.3 The first transcendental residue.

Our purpose is to give an explicit description of the injective homomorphism $`\psi :k[[𝐘]]\mathrm{\Delta }_v(t^\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, such that $`v=\nu _t\psi `$. In order not to complicate the exposition of this construction, we are supposing that all the residues are in $`k`$ or they are transcendental over the ground field. This condition seems too strong, but after the proof of theorem 2.8 we’ll explain why this situation is really close to the general one.

1) For the first elements we put

$$\psi (Y_i)=t^{Bi}i=1,\mathrm{},s.$$

2) Let us take $`Y_{s+1}`$ the first element whose value is a linear combination of the elements $`B_i`$ (in fact it must be equal to some $`B_i`$). Let us suppose that $`v(Y_{s+1})=B_{s+1,1}`$, then we have two possibilities:

* For all $`\alpha k`$, $`v(Y_{s+1}+\alpha 𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,1}}})=B_{s+1,1}`$. This fact means that the residue of $`Y_{s+1}/𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,1}}}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$ is transcendental over $`k`$. Let us put

$$u_{s+1}=\frac{Y_{s+1}}{𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,1}}}}+𝔪_v$$

and $`\psi (Y_{s+1})=u_{s+1}t^{B_{s+1,1}}`$.
* There exists $`\alpha k`$ such that $`v(Y_{s+1}+\alpha 𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,1}}})>_{\mathrm{lex}}B_{s+1,1}`$. So the residue of $`Y_{s+1}/𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,1}}}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$ is in $`k`$. Let us put $`\alpha _{s+1,1}=\alpha `$ and $`v(Y_{s+1}+\alpha _{s+1,1}𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,1}}})=B_{s+1,2}>B_{s+1,1}`$. There are two possibilities again:

+ The new value $`B_{s+1,2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. In this case, we make the change $`Z_{s+1}=Y_{s+1}+𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,1}}}`$, $`Z_i=Y_iis+1`$ and go back to the beginning of the procedure by preparing the new valuation of $`k((𝐙))`$ with the lemma 2.2.
    + The value $`B_{s+1,2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. If there exists $`\alpha _{s+1,2}`$ such that

    $$v\left(Y_{s+1}+\alpha _{s+1,1}𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,1}}}+\alpha _{s+1,2}𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,2}}}\right)=B_{s+1,3}>_{\mathrm{lex}}B_{s+1,2},$$

    then we ask again if $`B_{s+1,3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. In the affirmative case, if there exists $`\alpha _{s+1,3}k`$ such that

    $$v\left(Y_{s+1}+\alpha _{s+1,1}𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,1}}}+\alpha _{s+1,2}𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,2}}}+\alpha _{s+1,3}𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,3}}}\right)=B_{s+1,4}>_{\mathrm{lex}}B_{s+1,3},$$

    we go back to the beginning of the procedure.

    We continue this procedure until we find a value $`B_{s+1,l}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. If we cannot, there does not exist $`\alpha _{s+1,l}k`$ such that

    $$v\left(Y_{s+1}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{l}{}}\alpha _{s+1,k}𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,k}}}\right)=B_{s+1,l+1}>B_{s+1,l}.$$

    In the first case we make the change

    $$Z_{s+1}=Y_{s+1}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{l1}{}}\alpha _{s+1,k}𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,k}}},Z_i=X_iis+1$$

    and move to the lemma 2.2. In the second case we have that the residue

    $$u_{s+1}=\frac{Y_{s+1}+_{k=1}^{l1}\alpha _{s+1,k}𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,k}}}}{𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,l}}}}+𝔪_v$$

    is transcendental over $`k`$. In this case we put

    $$\psi (Y_{s+1})=\underset{k=1}{\overset{l1}{}}\alpha _{s+1,k}t^{B_{s+1,k}}+u_{s+1}t^{B_{s+1,l}}.$$

We have to prove that this procedure ends up finding a new value that it is not in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ or a transcendental residue.

###### Lemma 2.4.

The situation described in 2.b.i) only occurs a finite number of times.

Proof. There are two possible situations to find an element of value $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$:

1) The value $`B`$ is not a rational linear combination of the elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. In this case, the rank of the new subgroup of $`^m`$ increases by 1. Trivially this fact only occurs a finite number of times.

2) The new value $`B`$ is a non integer rational linear combination of the elements of the basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. Let $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_s\}`$ be the pivots that appears in the construction of the basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, let $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_s\}`$ be the ones of the new subgroup, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. As $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, then $`q_ip_ii`$ and, at least, one inequality is strict. As the pivotes are greater or equal than 1, this only occurs a finite number of times. ∎

###### Remark 2.5.

Let us suppose that we have a pseudo convergent set $`\{f_j\}`$ of elements of a valued field $`K`$, with value group $`^m`$ with lexicographic order. The set of values $`\{\omega _j\}`$ of the elements $`f_j`$ is a strictly increasing sequence of elements of the group $`^m`$. Let us suppose that the set $`\{\omega _j\}`$ is bounded. Then, from an index $`j`$ sufficiently big, we have

$$\omega _j=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_l,a_{l+1,j},\mathrm{},a_{m,j}),$$

in such way that the first $`l`$ coordinates of the values $`\omega _j`$ are stabilized. Let us suppose that $`l`$ is the greatest integer between 1 and $`m`$ such that this fact occurs.

Let $`f`$ be a limit of $`\{f_j\}`$ and $`\omega =v(f)`$ its value. Then, if $`\omega =(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$, as $`\omega >_{\mathrm{lex}}\omega _j`$ for all $`j`$, then there exists an $`l_0l`$ such that $`b_i=a_i`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},l_01`$ and $`b_{l_0}>a_{l_0}`$.

###### Lemma 2.6.

The procedure described in the situation 2.b.ii) finds a value that is not in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ or a transcendental residue over $`k`$.

Proof. If the procedure is not finite, then we have a set of elements $`\{f_j\}_{j1}`$ such that

$$f_j=Y_{s+1}+\underset{l=1}{\overset{j1}{}}\alpha _{s+1,l}𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,l}}}.$$

So $`v(f_{j+1})=B_{s+1,j+1}>_{\mathrm{lex}}v(f_j)=B_{s+1,j}`$ for all $`j`$.

Therefore, if $`i<j<k`$, we have

$$v(f_jf_i)=B_{s+1,i}<_{\mathrm{lex}}v(f_kf_j)=B_{s+1,j},$$

so $`\{f_j\}`$ is a pseudo-convergent set.

Let us suppose that the set of values $`\{B_{s+1,j}\}`$ is bounded. Like in the remark 2.5, let us suppose that, since an index $`j`$ sufficiently great, the first $`l`$ coordinates of the values are stabilized, where $`l`$ is the greatest integer between 1 and $`m`$ such that this fact occurs. Let us put

$$v(f_j)=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_l,a_{l+1,j},\mathrm{},a_{m,j}).$$

Again by remark 2.5, we know that any limit of $`\{f_j\}`$ is such that its value is something like

$$(a_1,\mathrm{},a_k,b_{k+1},\mathrm{},b_m),$$

with $`k<l`$ and $`b_{k+1}>a_{k+1}`$. Let us take the series

$$Y_{s+1}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _{s+1,j}𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,j}}}.$$

As limit, by convenience we put

$$g_1=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _{s+1,j}𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,j}}}$$

and $`v(Y_{s+1}+g_1)=B_{s+1,1}^1`$.

If $`B_{s+1,1}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, the we have finished. In other case, if there exists $`\alpha _{s+1,1}^1`$ such that

$$v\left(Y_{s+1}+g_1+\alpha _{s+1,1}^1𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,1}^1}}\right)=B_{s+1,2}^1>_{\mathrm{lex}}B_{s+1,1}^1,$$

then we continue with our procedure. If it is infinite again and the values contained are bounded, then we shall have a pseudo-convergent set with limit

$$Y_{s+1}+g_1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _{s+1,j}^1𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,j}^1}}.$$

Again by convenience we put

$$g_2=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _{s+1,j}^1𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1,j}^1}}$$

and $`v(Y_{s+1}+g_1+g_2)=B_{s+1,1}^2>_{\mathrm{lex}}B_{s+1,1}^1`$.

If this procedure does not find an element not in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ or a transcendental residue, we have a series

$$Y_{s+1}+g_1+g_2+g_3+\mathrm{}$$

such that the set of the partial sums

$$\left\{Y_{s+1}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}g_i\right\}_{j1}$$

is pseudo-convergent.

If the values of this set are bounded again, then, from one $`j`$ sufficiently great, the first $`k`$ coordinates of each value are stabilized, where $`k`$ is the greatest integer between 1 and $`m`$ such that this fact occurs. As all the values of this set are greater than the first limit we have found, then it must be $`k<l`$.

Therefore, if we don’t find a transcendental residue, after an infinite procedure of calculation of limits of pseudo-convergent sets, the values, if they are bounded, become stable in lesser and lesser coordinates.

So this procedure must end finding an element that is not in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ or a new transcendental residue. The opposite fact is equivalent to construct a series

$$f=Y_{s+1}+g(Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_s)k((𝐘))$$

such that the set of values of the partial sums is not a bounded strictky increasing sequence. This means that $`v(f)=\mathrm{}`$. So $`\psi (f)=0`$, but this is a contradiction because $`\psi `$ is injective.

So, at the end of this procedure, we shall have a series $`f=Y_{s+1}+g(Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_s)k((𝐘))`$ such that $`v(f)=B_{s+1}`$ and, either $`B_{s+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, or there does not exist $`\alpha `$ such that $`v(f+\alpha 𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1}}})>_{\mathrm{lex}}B_{s+1}`$. In this last case we take

$$u_{s+1}=\frac{f}{𝐘^{R_{B_{s+1}}}}+𝔪_v$$

and put

$$\psi (Y_{s+1})=g(t^{B_1},\mathrm{},t^{B_s})+u_{s+1}t^{B_{s+1}}.$$

### 2.4 Construction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$.

We can suppose that we have an immediate extension $`L=k((𝐘))`$ of $`K`$ such that:

1) $`\{B_1,\mathrm{},B_m\}`$ is a basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=^m`$. This means that the situation 2.b.i) is not going to appear any more and all the values that we find are integer linear combination of the basis.

2) We have applied the described procedure with the first $`k>m`$ elements $`Y_i`$ obtaining:

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi (Y_i)=t^{B_i},i=1,\mathrm{},m\hfill \\ \psi (Y_j)=_{l1}\alpha _{j,l}t^{B_{j,l}}+u_jt^{B_j},j=m+1,\mathrm{},k\hfill \end{array}$$

such that $`B_j>_{\mathrm{lex}}B_{j,l}>_{\mathrm{lex}}B_{j,l1}`$ y $`\{\alpha _{j,l}\}\mathrm{\Delta }_{j1}=k(u_{m+1},\mathrm{},u_{j1})\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$.

Our purpose is to describe the procedure with the variable $`Y_{k+1}`$, that is analogous to the described previously to find the first transcendental residue.

Let $`v(Y_{k+1})=B_{k+1,1}`$, there exists $`\alpha _{k+1,1}\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ such that $`v(Y_{k+1}+\alpha _{k+1,1}𝐘^{R_{B_{k+1,1}}})=B_{k+1,2}>_{\mathrm{lex}}B_{k+1,1}`$?

1) If the answer is affirmative, then we pore the question for the new element $`Y_{k+1}+\alpha _{k+1,1}𝐘^{R_{B_{k+1,1}}}`$.

2) If it is negative then we put

$$\psi (Y_{k+1})=u_{k+1}t^{B_{k+1,1}}$$

and go to the following variable.

###### Lemma 2.7.

This procedure ends finding a new transcendental residue, eventually after an infinite number of calculations.

Proof. The reasoning is the same that in lemma 2.6, if there is not such transcendental residue, then we can construct a pseudo-convergent set that has a limit

$$f=Y_{k+1}+g(Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_m)k((𝐘)),$$

of value $`\mathrm{}`$. This implies that $`\psi (f)=0`$, and this is a contradiction ∎

With this procedure we prove the following theorem:

###### Theorem 2.8.

The residue field of $`v`$ is $`k(u_{m+1},\mathrm{},u_n)`$.

Proof. The constructions described in this work permit us to find one immediate extension $`L=k((𝐘))`$ of $`K`$ such that the valuation that extends $`v`$ to the field $`L`$ is defined by the composition of

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \psi :k((𝐘))& & k(u_{m+1},\mathrm{},u_n)(t^\mathrm{\Gamma })\hfill \\ \hfill Y_i& & t^{B_i},i=1,\mathrm{},m\hfill \\ \hfill Y_j& & _{k1}\alpha _{j,k}t^{B_{j,k}}+u_jt^{B_j},j=m+1,\mathrm{},n\hfill \end{array}$$

with the valuation $`\nu _t`$ of $`k(u_{m+1},\mathrm{},u_n)(t^\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Clearly the residue field of this valuation is $`k(u_{m+1},\mathrm{},u_n)`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.9.

The general case: considering algebraic residues. If we find non-trivial algebraic residues, then the procedure does not change, and we obtain the residue field

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_v=k(\zeta _{m+1},\mathrm{},\zeta _n),$$

where $`\zeta _i`$ is a collection, eventually infinite, of algebraic residues $`\{\alpha _{i,k}\}`$ and one transcendental residue $`u_i`$.

All of these algebraic extensions are finite; in other case we can do the same as the proof of theorem 1.6 to obtain a valuation with dimension greater than $`nm`$.

It could be another problem in the general case, because in fact we are constructing a representant field of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$ as an intermediate extension of $`k\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }_v)K`$, where $`\sigma `$ is a section of the natural homomorphism $`R_v\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$. As the rings of power series are completes, we can apply Hensel’s lemma to know that we can find an algebraic representant $`\alpha K`$ for every algebraic residue $`\alpha +𝔪_v`$.

## 3 Monomial valuations.

Althought the number of operations to calculate $`\psi `$ explicitly with the previous procedure is infinite, the number of monoidal transformations, coordinates changes and interchanges of variables that transform $`K`$ in $`L`$ is finite, because these only appear when we find a value $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and this fact occurs a finite number of times. Following the trace of these transformations we obtain a map $`\phi :K\mathrm{\Delta }_v(t^\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ that is the restriction of $`\psi `$ and parametrizes $`v`$. In a similar way we can obtain some representatives of every residue $`u_i`$ depending on $`𝐗`$.

Finally we give a theorem that generalizes the results obtained in  for rank one discrete valuations of $`k((X_1,X_2))`$ centered in $`k[[X_1,X_2]]`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

For all rank $`m`$ discrete valuation $`v`$ of $`K|k`$, with dimension $`nm`$ and centered in $`R`$, there exists an immediate extension $`L=k((𝐙))`$ of $`K`$ such that the lifting of $`v`$ to $`L`$ is monomial.

Proof. In fact, by means of the previous procedure we obtain an immediate extension $`k((𝐘))`$ of $`K`$ such that the lifting of $`v`$ is $`v=\nu _t\psi `$, with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \psi :k((𝐘))& & k(u_{m+1},\mathrm{},u_n)(t^\mathrm{\Gamma })\hfill \\ \hfill Y_i& & t^{B_i},i=1,\mathrm{},m\hfill \\ \hfill Y_j& & _{k1}\alpha _{j,k}t^{B_{j,k}}+u_jt^{B_j},j=m+1,\mathrm{},n.\hfill \end{array}$$

This valuation is not monomial, but if we make the change

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill k((𝐘))& & k((𝐙))\hfill \\ \hfill Y_i& & Z_i,i=1,\mathrm{},m\hfill \\ \hfill Y_j& & Z_j_{k1}\alpha _{j,k}𝐙^{R_{B_{j,k}}},j=m+1,\mathrm{},n,\hfill \end{array}$$

then the natural extension of $`\psi `$ to $`k((𝐙))`$ is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \varphi :k((𝐙))& & k(u_{m+1},\mathrm{},u_n)(t^\mathrm{\Gamma })\hfill \\ \hfill Y_i& & t^{B_i},i=1,\mathrm{},m\hfill \\ \hfill Y_j& & u_jt^{B_j},j=m+1,\mathrm{},n\hfill \end{array}$$

and the valuation $`v=\nu _t\varphi `$ is monomial. ∎

###### Remark 3.2.

In the general case, considering algebraic residues, we obtain an inmediate extension $`L=k^{}((𝐙))`$, where $`k^{}`$ is an extension of $`k`$ contained in $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }_v)`$. The lifting of $`v`$ in $`L`$ is a monomial valuation.

###### Example 3.3.

Let $`R=k[[X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4]]`$ be the power series ring, with $`k=/_5`$. Let $`K`$ be the quotient field. Let us consider the series $`W_1=X_4_{i1}X_3^{3i}`$ and $`W_2=X_2_{i1}X_1^i`$. Let us consider the following valuations:

$`v_1`$: $`(W_1)`$–adic valuation of $`K`$,

$`v_2`$: $`(W_2)`$–adic valuation of $`K/(W_1)`$ and

$`v_3`$: monomial valuation of $`K/(W_1,W_2)`$ defined by the values $`v_3(X_1)=v_3(X_3)=1`$.

Finally, let $`v`$ be the composite valuation $`v=v_3v_2v_1`$. It is a rank 3 discrete valuation of $`K|k`$, such that:

$$\begin{array}{c}v(X_1)=v(X_3)=(0,0,1)\hfill \\ v(W_2)=(0,1,0)\hfill \\ v(W_1)=(1,0,0),\hfill \end{array}$$

wherefrom

$$\begin{array}{c}v(X_2)=v(W_2+_{i1}X_1^i)=(0,0,1)\hfill \\ v(X_4)=v(W_1+_{i1}X_3^{3i})=(0,0,3).\hfill \end{array}$$

So the values of the variables generate the subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\{0\}\times \{0\}\times `$. From lemma 2.2 we know that the transformation $`X_4Y_4Y_1^2`$ takes $`K`$ in to an immediate extension $`L=k((Y_1,Y_2,Y_3,Y_4))`$, such that $`v(Y_i)=(0,0,1),i=1,2,3,4`$. We shall apply the given procedure with this example to obtain a parametrization, $`\psi `$, of $`v`$.

Let us put $`\psi (Y_1)=t^{(0,0,1)}`$. We shall begin with the variable $`Y_2`$, as $`v(Y_2)=(0,0,1)`$, and we ask if there exists $`\alpha k`$ such that $`v(Y_2+\alpha Y_1)>_{\mathrm{lex}}(0,0,1)`$. By the construction of $`v`$, we know that $`v(Y_2Y_1)=v(X_2X_1)=(0,0,2)>_{\mathrm{lex}}(0,0,1)`$. Following the procedure, we find that

$$v\left(Y_2\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}iY_1^i\right)=(0,0,l+1)>_{\mathrm{lex}}(0,0,l).$$

So we have a pseudo-convergent set $`\{f_l\}`$, with $`f_l=Y_2_{i=1}^liY_1^i`$. A limit of this set is

$$f_{\mathrm{}}=Y_2\underset{i1}{}iY_1^i.$$

As $`v(f_{\mathrm{}})=v(W_2)=(0,1,0)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, we put

$$\psi (Y_2)=\underset{i1}{}it^{(0,0,i)}+t^{(0,1,0)}.$$

We continue with $`Y_3`$, now $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\{0\}\times \times `$. Since it does not exist $`\alpha k`$ such that $`v(Y_3+\alpha Y_1)>_{\mathrm{lex}}(0,0,1)`$, we put

$$\psi (Y_3)=u_3t^{(0,0,1)}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3=k(u_3)`$, with $`u_3=Y_3/Y_1+𝔪_v`$. Let us go to the variable $`Y_4=X_4/X_1^2`$, $`v(Y_4)=(0,0,1)`$.By the construction of $`v`$, we know that

$$v\left(Y_4u_3^3Y_1\right)=v\left(\frac{X_4X_3^3}{X_1^2}\right)=(0,0,4)>_{\mathrm{lex}}(0,0,1).$$

Following the procedure we have

$$v\left(Y_4\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}u_3^{3i}Y_1^{3i2}\right)=v\left(\frac{X_4_{i=1}^lX_3^{3i}}{X_1^2}\right)=(0,0,3i+1).$$

Wherefrom we come to have a pseudo-convergent set $`\{g_l\}`$, with $`g_l=Y_4_{i=1}^lu_3^{3i}Y_1^{3i2}`$. A limit of this set is

$$g_{\mathrm{}}=Y_4\underset{i1}{}u_3^{3i}Y_1^{3i2}$$

and $`v(g_{\mathrm{}})=v(W_1/X_1^2)=(1,0,2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. We put

$$\psi (Y_4)=\underset{i1}{}u_3^{3i}t^{(0,0,3i2)}+t^{(1,0,2)}.$$

Therefore we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v=k((X_3/X_1)+𝔪_v)`$ and

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\psi (X_1)=t^{(0,0,1)}\hfill \\ \psi (X_2)=_{i1}it^{(0,0,i)}+t^{(0,1,0)}\hfill \\ \psi (X_3)=u_3t^{(0,0,1)}\hfill \\ \psi (X_4)=_{i1}u_3^{3i}t^{(0,0,3i)}+t^{(1,0,0)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

This way, making the substitution $`X_1=Z_1`$, $`X_2=Z_2+iZ_1^i`$, $`X_3=Z_3`$ y $`X_4=Z_4+Z_3^{3i}`$, we have an immediate extension $`M=k((Z_1,Z_2,Z_3,Z_4))`$ of $`K`$. The valuation that extends $`v`$ to $`M`$ is the monomial valuation defined by $`v(Z_1)=v(Z_3)=(0,0,1)`$, $`v(Z_2)=(0,1,0)`$ and $`v(Z_4)=(1,0,0)`$


format: text

text:
# Bounds on the mass of the 𝑏' quark, revisited

## I Introduction

It has long been known that a sequential fourth generation within the Standard Model (SM) needs both quarks and leptons. Half a generation would imply that the gauge anomalies associated with triangle diagrams would not cancel. It is also known Hagiwara:fs  that SLC, and then LEP have set a bound on the number of light neutrinos ($`m_\nu <M_Z/2`$), which is indisputably equal to three. This bound applies to all new fermions that couple to the Z and one has to be extremely open minded to accept a fourth neutrino with a mass larger than around 45 GeV. Thus, there seems to be no strong motivation for the search of a sequential fourth generation (for a review see Frampton:1999xi ). So why look for it?

Despite the strength of the previous arguments one should try to experimentally exclude the existence of a fourth generation. In fact such evidence does not yet exist. The most recent precision electroweak results Novikov:2001md  allow a sequential fourth generation if the quark masses are not too further apart1. 11footnotetext: This result is a strong bound on the mass difference of a possible fourth generation. Nevertheless, it should be noticed that the authors assume no mixing of the extra families with the SM ones. The same results also disfavour a degenerate fourth family if both the leptonic and hadronic sector are degenerate. This is in agreement with the conclusions of Erler and Langacker Hagiwara:fs . However, as discussed in ref. Frampton:1999xi , there are several reasons to keep investigating this subject starting with the fact that precision results vary with time. In ref. Frampton:1999xi  it can be seen that even if one takes a degenerate fourth family of quarks with 150 GeV masses, it is enough to choose a non-degenerate family of leptons with masses of 100 GeV and 200 GeV and a Higgs mass of 180 GeV for the discrepancy with experimental data to fall from roughly three to two standard deviations2. 22footnotetext: Notice that we make no assumptions on the values of the masses and couplings of the leptonic sector of the model. Moreover, it is clear that any new physics will also influence these results.

It was shown in refs. Frampton:1999xi ; Arhrib:2000ct  that the mass range $`|m_t^{}m_b^{}|60\text{GeV}`$, where $`t^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$ are the fourth generation quarks, is consistent with all available precision electroweak data. This range enable us to say that even if $`m_b^{}>m_t^{}`$, the decay $`b^{}t^{}W`$ is forbidden. The decay $`b^{}t^{}W^{}`$ although allowed, is phase space suppressed Sher:1999ae  and consequently extremely small in the mass range under study (from now on we consider $`m_b^{}<m_t^{}`$). Experimental data allow us to go only up to $`m_b^{}`$ close to $`180`$ GeV. Hence, the $`b^{}`$ can not decay to a top quark. Furthermore, while some recent studies Yanir:2002cq ; Huang:2000xe  have constrained the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) elements of the fourth generation, they do not influence our results. Nevertheless we will take into account the $`2\sigma `$ bound $`|V_{tb}|^2+0.75|V_{t^{}b}|^21.14`$ Yanir:2002cq  coming from $`Zb\overline{b}`$ to constrain the CKM element $`V_{cb^{}}`$ as a function of the $`b^{}`$ mass.

Present experimental bounds on the $`b^{}`$ mass above 96 GeV suffer from the drawback of assuming a 100 % branching ratio for a specific decay channel. As stated before the strongest bound on the $`b^{}`$ mass comes from LEP Decamp:1989fk  and is $`m_b^{}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}46}`$ GeV. Here all $`b^{}`$ decays were considered. There are presently three bounds on the $`b^{}`$ mass for $`m_b^{}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}96}`$ GeV. The first one Affolder:1999bs , $`m_b^{}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}199}`$ GeV, assumes that $`Br(b^{}bZ)=100\%`$. We will drop this condition and use instead their plot of $`\sigma (p\overline{p}b^{}\overline{b^{}}+X)\times Br^2(b^{}bZ)`$ as a function of the $`b^{}`$ mass. The second one Abachi:1995ms  $`m_b^{}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}128}`$ GeV, is based on the data collected in the top quark search. Because the D0 collaboration looked for $`tbW`$, the analysis can be used to set a limit on $`\sigma (p\overline{p}b^{}\overline{b^{}}+X)\times Br^2(b^{}cW)`$. By doing so we assume that the $`b`$ and $`c`$ quark masses are negligible and that $`\sigma (p\overline{p}b^{}\overline{b^{}})\sigma (p\overline{p}t\overline{t})`$. The obtained limit $`m_b^{}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}128}`$ GeV assumes $`Br(b^{}cW)=100\%`$. The third bound is from CDF Abe:1998ee  and is based on the decay $`b^{}bZ`$ followed by the search for $`Ze^+e^{}`$ with displaced vertices. Their excluded region is inside a rectangle in the lifetime $`(c\tau )`$, $`m_b^{}`$ plane with $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}\times 10^3\text{cm}<c\tau <\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12}\text{cm}`$ and $`m_b+M_Z<m_b^{}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}148}`$ GeV sides. Hence, the excluded region depends heavily on the $`b^{}`$ lifetime. But, contrary to the top quark which has a lifetime of around $`10^{24}s`$, the lifetime of a sequential $`b^{}`$ quark is expected to be extremely large, especially knowing that we are considering a heavy $`b^{}`$. In fact, depending on the CKM values and on the $`b^{}`$ and $`t^{}`$ masses, the decay length can be as large as $`10^4`$ cm or even $`10^3`$ cm in extreme cases. Nevertheless, in this model, it is very hard to go beyond that value. It is worth mentioning that even with this huge lifetime, the $`b^{}`$ always decays inside the detector and hadronization occurs before it decays. Thus, the limit obtained in Abe:1998ee  which on top of what was said assumes $`Br(b^{}bZ)=100\%`$ can not be used in our analysis.

Hence, we think it is worthwhile to reexamine the limits on the $`b^{}`$ mass. We will use the CDF and the D0 data which, together with the new DELPHI data, is all that there is available for $`m_b^{}>96`$ GeV. We will draw exclusion plots in the plane ($`R_{CKM}`$, $`m_b^{}`$), where $`R_{CKM}=|\frac{V_{cb^{}}}{V_{tb^{}}V_{tb}}|`$, from 96 GeV to 180 GeV without assuming a definite value for the branching ratios of specific channels. In some regions it is possible to combine all experimental data allowing a larger exclusion area. Notice that the use of the $`R_{CKM}`$ variable provides a new way to look at the experimental results. This variable enable us to actually use and combine all the available data. Moreover, the new form in which the results are presented will serve as a guide to future experiments since it is possible to know how far one has to go to exclude the regions that are still allowed.

To end this section we note that there is, at present, no bound on a sequential $`2/3`$ charged quark in the PDG but if we assume a 100 % decay to cW the bound is again 128 GeV Abachi:1995ms .

The paper is organised as follows. In section II we define the model and discuss the production and the decays of $`b^{}`$ quarks. In section III we combine the theoretical and the experimental results to produce exclusion plots in the parameter space. Section IV summarises our results and conclusions.

## II b’ production and decay

There are several ways of extending the SM to accommodate a fourth family of quarks and/or leptons. A review of the different models in the literature is available in Frampton:1999xi . Obviously, the most natural and straightforward way to introduce a fourth family in the SM is just to add a $`(t^{},b^{})`$ family with the same quantum numbers and similar couplings to all other known quarks. The same can be done for the lepton sector3. 33footnotetext: Now that it is finally accepted that neutrinos have mass, the SM has to be changed to accommodate this new feature. We do not restrict ourselves to any specific mechanism that generates the very high neutrino mass needed in SM4. This is called a sequential fourth generation model and is sometimes referred to as SM4. The resulting CKM matrix has a very similar structure to the SM one. It is a $`4\times 4`$ unitary matrix and it is assumed to be approximately symmetric. Besides the four new masses, there are 9 additional parameters compared to the SM: 6 mixing angles instead of 3 and 3 complex phases instead of 1. Because we are not concerned with CP-violation we take all CKM values to be real. In the SM4, the CKM elements that are not determined experimentally have more freedom due to the extra parameters introduced. This model has been the subject of wide study in the literature. Production cross sections for lepton and hadron colliders and $`b^{}`$ branching fractions were calculated long ago.

At LEP, a pair of heavy quarks is produced through the reaction $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$. For consistency with the experimental analysis, the process $`e^+e^{}b^{}\overline{b^{}}`$ was calculated using Pythia Sjostrand:2000wi , with initial state radiation (ISR), final state radiation (FSR) and QCD corrections turned on. We have cross checked the results using a simple program with the formulas of refs. Jersak:sp  and Bernreuther:1991hy , which also include QCD corrections and ISR. Since the larger contribution to the cross section comes from ISR we have double checked by making use of the formulas presented in Kuraev:hb . The results agree very well with the Pythia results. It should be noticed that near the threshold bound states would surely be formed. Without a detailed analysis of such bound states it is impossible to evaluate whether their contribution to the cross section would be relevant or not. So, if bound states do exist above the threshold, we are assuming that they give a negligible contribution to the cross section. Far away from the threshold the problem ceases to exist and the results we will show for hadron colliders are not affected by this approximation.

The equivalent production reaction at the Tevatron is $`p\overline{p}b^{}\overline{b^{}}+X`$, with the relevant processes being $`gg(q\overline{q})b^{}\overline{b^{}}`$. Even though this cross section can not be found in the literature it is generally recognised that all massive quark pair production cross section are very similar due to its hadronic nature. The same is true for the subsequent decays into leptons and for the detector efficiency. Thus we can use the exact order $`\alpha _s^3`$ corrected cross section for the production of top quarks Laenen:1993xr . This approximation is used both by the CDF and the D0 collaborations in their studies on $`b^{}`$ production and decay. In Abachi:1995ms  it is also assumed that the final states are exactly the same as the top quark ones. Notice that the error in calculating the hadronic cross section is much larger than the corresponding error in the leptonic one. For $`m_q=100`$ GeV the error is about 38 % falling to 12 % for $`m_q=200`$ GeV. This will be reflected in the exclusion plots.

All $`b^{}`$ decays were exhaustively studied by Hou and Stuart in Hou:1988yu ; Hou:1988sx ; Hou:1989ty ; Hou:1990wz  and by Haeri, Eilam and Soni hes . Hou and Stuart have shown that the $`b^{}`$ is peculiar in the sense that 1-loop flavour change decays (FCNC) can dominate over charged current decays (CC). Depending on the values of the CKM matrix elements and as long as the Higgs channel remains closed, there are mainly two processes in competition: $`b^{}bZ`$ and $`b^{}cW`$. As soon as the Higgs channel opens the decay $`b^{}bH`$ can be as large as $`b^{}bZ`$. Other decays like $`b^{}bg`$ and $`b^{}b\gamma `$ and three body decays give smaller contributions but can sometimes be relevant.

The three body decays $`b^{}be^+e^{}`$, $`b^{}b\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`b^{}bq\overline{q}`$, including box diagrams were calculated in Hou:1989ty . At that time, the top mass was still unknown and the $`t^{}`$ was taken to be much larger than the top mass. Under these conditions and for the range of the $`b^{}`$ mass in study, the sum of all three body decays could be as large as $`b^{}bg`$. It could be even larger for a “small” $`t`$ mass and a very large $`t^{}`$ mass Hou:1989ty . But it turned out that the top mass is $``$ 175 GeV and electroweak precision measurements force $`m_t^{}`$ to be close to $`m_b^{}`$ for the range of $`b^{}`$ mass under consideration. In our case we estimate all three body decays plus the decay $`b^{}b\gamma `$ to be smaller than $`b^{}bg`$. Nevertheless, because we want to make a conservative estimate we will take it to be as large as $`b^{}bg`$.

Using the unitarity of the CKM matrix, its approximate symmetry $`V_{t^{}b^{}}V_{t^{}b}V_{tb}V_{tb^{}}`$, and taking $`V_{ub^{}}V_{ub}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ and $`V_{cb}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^2`$ we can write all branching fractions as a function of three quantities alone: $`R_{CKM}`$, $`m_t^{}`$ and $`m_b^{}`$. Notice that the two last conditions do not play a significant role in the final result. Using a very large value like for instance $`V_{ub^{}}V_{ub}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$ gives a contribution much less than 1 % to the $`b^{}bZ`$ decay width. The same is true when we relax the condition $`V_{t^{}b^{}}V_{t^{}b}V_{tb}V_{tb^{}}`$ near to a GIM cancellation region. Relaxing this condition leads to an increase by several orders of magnitude of the values of the NC decay widths but they are always much smaller than the CC decays in that region.

One-loop calculations of the NC $`b^{}`$ decays were performed using the FeynArts and FeynCalc feyn  packages for generating and computing the complete set of diagrams and the LoopTools/FF ff  packages for the numerical analysis. We have carried out several checks in the four generations model following Arhrib:2000ct ; Hou:1988yu ; Hou:1988sx ; Hou:1989ty ; Hou:1990wz  and in the SM against Mele ; Eilam . We have found full agreement in both cases.

The branching ratios depend on three quantities alone and 96 GeV $`m_b^{}`$ 180 GeV. So, we just have to decide on what values of $`R_{CKM}`$ and $`m_t^{}`$ to use. Since we know that $`m_t^{}`$ is limited by precision data we will study two extreme cases $`m_t^{}=m_b^{}+50`$ GeV and the almost degenerate case $`m_t^{}=m_b^{}+1`$ GeV. In the exclusion plots $`R_{CKM}`$ is a free parameter and so no assumptions on its variation range were made. However, there is a hint on its most significant values coming from the fact that the competing NC and CC cross at $`10^3R_{CKM}10^2`$. We will come back to this point later.

In fig. 1 we present the branching ratios as a function of the $`b^{}`$ mass with $`R_{CKM}=0.001`$ and $`m_t^{}m_b^{}=50`$ GeV. The closer to $`m_b^{}=96`$ GeV we are the larger $`b^{}bg`$ gets due to phase space suppression of the competing NC $`b^{}bZ`$. In fact, for an almost degenerate fourth family and small values of $`R_{CKM}`$, $`b^{}bg`$ can be the dominant NC for $`m_b^{}=96`$ GeV. As soon as one moves away from this value, $`b^{}bZ`$ becomes the dominant NC. If the Higgs channel is closed , for $`m_b^{}97`$ GeV, the competition is always between $`b^{}cW`$ and $`b^{}bZ`$. As $`m_b^{}`$ rises so does the NC except if the GIM mechanism gets in the way. It can be clearly seen in the figure the GIM mechanism acting for $`m_b^{}125`$ GeV, that is, $`m_t^{}m_t=0`$. Then the NC rises again and the CC falls crossing at 140 GeV. When $`R_{CKM}`$ grows so does $`b^{}cW`$ and the crossing point is shifted to the left. As the mass difference tends to zero the GIM effect is shifted to $`m_b^{}m_t`$.

In fig. 2 we show the branching ratios as a function of $`R_{CKM}`$ with $`m_b^{}=110`$ GeV and $`m_t^{}m_b^{}=1`$ GeV. As we already knew, the NC are favoured by small values of $`R_{CKM}`$ because $`R_{CKM}`$ is a direct measure of the charged currents. Again, when $`m_b^{}`$ grows so does $`b^{}bZ`$ and the crossing point is shifted to the left. The same happens when $`m_t^{}m_b^{}`$ decreases as explained above.

## III Results and discussion

We are now in a position to draw exclusion plots on the plane $`(R_{CKM},m_b^{})`$ with $`m_t^{}`$ as a parameter. Using the latest experimental data from the DELPHI collaboration and the data from the CDF and D0 collaborations together with the theoretical values of the cross sections and the branching ratios we have drawn the exclusion plots shown in the figures below. The upper regions are excluded by the limits on $`Br_{b^{}cW}`$ and the lower regions by the limits on $`Br_{b^{}bZ}`$.

The results based on the DELPHI data, are shown in figs. 3 and 4. The only difference between the two plots is in the value of $`m_t^{}`$. It can be seen that as $`m_t^{}m_b^{}`$ grows, the allowed region gets smaller. This is because $`Br_{b^{}bZ}`$ decreases with $`m_t^{}`$ due to a GIM suppression as long as $`m_t^{}`$ is smaller than $`m_t`$ and $`(m_t^{}m_t)0`$. On the contrary, $`Br_{b^{}cW}`$ does not depend on the $`t^{}`$ mass. Hence, as $`m_t^{}`$ grows, $`Br_{b^{}cW}`$ becomes dominant and the upper excluded region increases.

The reason why there isn’t a lower bound close to 96 GeV in both figures is because of the competing neutral currents. Close to the $`Zb`$ threshold ($``$ 96 GeV), $`b^{}bg`$ dominates over $`b^{}bZ`$ and the experimental bound on $`Br_{b^{}bZ}`$ becomes useless. As one moves away from the $`Zb`$ threshold, $`b^{}bZ`$ becomes the dominant neutral current. $`Br_{b^{}bZ}`$ falls less sharply with $`m_t^{}`$ than the other neutral currents and that explains why there is a lower bound for e.g. at $`m_b^{}=100`$ GeV in fig. 4 but not in fig. 3. After 102 GeV almost all values are allowed because the experiments are not sensitive to those mass values.

In figs. 5 and 6 we show similar plots but using the CDF and the D0 data. The D0 data is responsible for excluding the upper regions because it deals with CC as the CDF excludes the lower regions due to the bounds on NC. The three curves marked upper, central and lower are related with the theoretical error bars in the $`b^{}`$ production cross section. Again and for the same reason the excluded region grows with $`m_t^{}m_b^{}`$. This means that like the constraints from precision electroweak data, the experimental data also disfavours a fourth family with a large mass difference between the two quarks.

In some cases the allowed regions in the CDF/D0 and DELPHI plots overlap and the excluded region grows. For instance, considering $`m_b^{}=100`$ GeV and $`m_t^{}m_b^{}=50`$ GeV we get for DELPHI $`4.5\times 10^4<R_{CKM}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8.4}\times 10^4`$ and for CDF/D0 (lower) $`6.7\times 10^4<R_{CKM}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.1}\times 10^3`$. Hence, the resulting excluded region is $`6.7\times 10^4<R_{CKM}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8.4}\times 10^4`$.

With the bound $`|V_{tb}|^2+0.75|V_{t^{}b}|^21.14`$ Yanir:2002cq  and assuming $`|V_{tb}|1`$ it is possible to limit the value of the matrix element $`V_{cb^{}}`$. For the same value of the $`b^{}`$ mass, $`m_b^{}=100`$ GeV we know that $`R_{CKM}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8.4}\times 10^4`$ and so

$$V_{cb^{}}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8.4}\times 10^4\sqrt{0.14/0.75}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.6}\times 10^4$$

with $`m_t^{}=m_b^{}+50=150\text{GeV}`$. The bound gets weaker for smaller $`m_t^{}`$ Yanir:2002cq .

Finally we show an exclusion plot with the Higgs channel opened and a Higgs mass of 115 GeV. As we expected, the inclusion of the Higgs makes the excluded region to shrink. By itself, the inclusion of one more channel always diminishes the branching ratios and consequently less values will be excluded. Like $`b^{}bZ`$, $`b^{}bh`$ is larger for small $`R_{CKM}`$ and large $`m_b^{}`$. Hence in this region of parameter space it competes with $`b^{}bZ`$ and $`b^{}cW`$ making the allowed region larger. For a detailed analysis of the so-called cocktail solution see Arhrib:2000ct .

## IV Conclusion

In this work we have found the allowed $`b^{}`$ mass as a function of the CKM elements of a four generations sequential model. Using all available experimental data for $`m_b^{}>96`$ GeV we have shown that there is still plenty of room for a $`b^{}`$ with a mass larger than 96 GeV. We have also shown that the allowed region decreases as $`m_t^{}`$ increases. In fact, as the gap between the fourth generation quark masses increases the allowed region shrinks. Notice that this is in full agreement with the tendency of a small mass gap, if not completely degenerated, favoured by the electroweak precision measurements.

All plots show that $`R_{CKM}`$ is for sure smaller than $`10^2`$ and it can be as small as $`10^4`$. This is not surprising because this region is exactly where we expected it to be. In fact, the CKM values we know so far suggest that $`V_{cb^{}}10^410^3`$. If $`V_{tb^{}}10^1`$ then a value of $`R_{CKM}`$ between $`10^2`$ and $`10^4`$ is absolutely natural. Moreover, the limit we have obtained for $`V_{cb^{}}`$ in the last section makes it even more natural.

We know that the DELPHI analysis DELPHI\_NOTE  is being improved. In the near future we hope to reduce very much the allowed region in figs. 3 and 4. As far as we know there are no new results from the CDF and the D0 collaborations improving their bounds. For large $`m_t^{}m_b^{}`$, and for some values of $`m_b^{}`$ the CDF/D0 limits almost shrink the allowed region to zero. Hence, a small improvement in the analysis could disallow a large region of the parameter space.

As for the future, searches in hadron colliders will have to wait for the RunII of the Tevatron and for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The $`b^{}\overline{b^{}}`$ production cross section increases by roughly two orders of magnitude at the LHC compared to the Tevatron. Thus LHC will be a copious source of $`b^{}`$ pairs. With high values for cross section and luminosity, if background is suppressed exclusion plots can be drawn for a very wide range of $`b^{}`$ masses. However, we have to worry about two problems in future searches. From the theoretical point of view we have to take into account all the possible hierarchies in mass, for instance one could have $`m_t^{}<m_t<m_b^{}`$ or $`m_t<m_t^{}<m_b^{}`$. A careful study, including also the possibility of finding a Higgs has to be done. From the experimental point of view we have to know how the detectors will perform.

Nobody knows yet if there is going to be a Next Linear Collider with energies of $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV or $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ TeV. NLC would allow us to go up $`m_b^{}=250`$ GeV or $`m_b^{}=500`$ GeV which is close to the perturbative limit. Depending on the available luminosity, and because a small background is expected, we believe that the excluded region would be very large, probably allowing the exclusion of some values of $`m_b^{}`$ regardless of the values of the mixing angles. However, if a Higgs boson is found the excluded region will surely be smaller and will depend on the mass and type of Higgs boson found. For a detailed discussion on future searches see Frampton:1999xi .

In summary we believe that there is still experimental and theoretical work to be done to find or definitely to exclude a sequential fourth generation of quarks at the electroweak scale.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank A. Barroso and M. Pimenta for comments and suggestions on the manuscript. We thank A. Onofre for reading of the manuscript. We thank our DELPHI/LIP collaborators and also M. Greco for discussions. This work is supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia under contract POCTI/FNU/49523/2002. S.M.O. is supported by FCT under contract SFRH/BD/6455/2001.