format: text

text:
# Strategies for The Determination of ϕ₃ in 𝐵⁻→𝐷⁰𝐾⁻

## 1 Introduction

The asymmetric B experiments BaBaR $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and BELLE $`^\mathrm{?}`$ have already obtained preliminary measurements of the angle $`\varphi _1`$ of the unitarity triangle $`^\mathrm{?}`$ of the Cabibbo Kobayashi-Maskawa $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (CKM) matrix through the “gold-plated” mode $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`\psi K`$. Using $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ oscillation it may also be possible to extract $`\varphi _2`$ via modes such as $`\pi \pi `$ and $`\pi \rho `$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ however to extract $`\varphi _3`$ using oscillations requires $`B_s`$-mesons and so is inaccessible to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ machines.

Although experiments to extract $`\varphi _3`$ via $`B_s`$ oscillations may be performed at hadronic $`B`$-facilities it is also possible to measure $`\varphi _3`$ through direct CP violation in the $`B`$ system. Thus, the complete set of unitarity angles may, in principle, be accessible at $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ machines. Specifying as many parameters of the unitarity triangle as possible is, of course an important check of the Standard Model (SM). In addition, if $`\varphi _3`$ is measured via direct CP violation the comparison to the measurement through indirect CP-violation in the $`B_s`$ system provides another non-trivial check of the SM.

The idea behind the measurement of $`\varphi _3`$ through direct CP violation is to consider a process which allows interference of the quark level processes $`b\overline{u}cs`$ and $`bu\overline{c}s`$. This may be accomplished if both processes ultimately hadronize to a common final state $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. In particular $`b\overline{u}cs`$ can drive the decay $`B^{}D^0K^{}`$ while $`bu\overline{c}s`$ can drive the decay $`B^{}\overline{D}^0K^{}`$ which will thus interfere provided that $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ are detected through decays into a common final state.

In this talk, I will discuss various strategies for the determination of $`\varphi _3`$ in such decays. The most crucial element is the selection of the $`D^0`$ decay modes which are to be used. In the simplest case is where CP violation is seen in a single mode we will see that there is not enough information to precisely determine $`\varphi _3`$. However, in Section 2 I will show if the CP violation is large, significant bounds may be placed on $`\varphi _3`$ thus modes where CP violation may be large are especially significant. More generally, as discussed in Section 3, $`\varphi _3`$ may be extracted if two or more modes are measured. A single three body mode may also give equivalent information because each point on the $`D`$-decay Dalitz plot may be regarded as a separate “mode”. These methods are subject to possible contamination from $`D\overline{D}`$ oscillation if it is on the order of $`1\%`$, I will discuss the impact of this possibility and methods to deal with it in Section 4 and in Section 5 I will give my conclusions.

## 2 One $`D^0`$ Decay Mode

Consider the case where $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ can decay to a common final state $`X`$. This may either be CP eigenstate (e.g. $`K^+K^{}`$) or a state such as $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ which is a Cabibbo allowed (CA) decay of the $`\overline{D}^0`$ but a doubly Cabibbo suppressed (DCS) decay of the $`D^0`$. In either case, one can determine $`\varphi _3`$ if one can measure $`^\mathrm{?}`$ the rates $`d(X)=Br(B^{}K^{}[X])`$ and $`\overline{d}(\overline{X})=Br(B^+K^+[\overline{X}])`$ (here $`[X]`$ means a decay to $`X`$ via $`D^0`$ mixed with the $`\overline{D}^0`$ channel) provided one also knows the branching ratios $`a=Br(B^{}K^{}D^0)`$; $`b=Br(B^{}K^{}\overline{D}^0)`$; $`c(X)=Br(D^0X)`$ and $`\overline{c}(X)=Br(\overline{D}^0X)`$. This information allows us to solve (up to an eight fold ambiguity) for the weak phase $`\varphi _3`$ as well as the total strong phase difference $`\xi `$.

In practice, however, $`b`$ is not easy to determined directly because it is difficult to find a prominent tag for $`\overline{D}^0`$. For instance, a leptonic tag has a large background from leptonic decay of $`B^{}`$ while if one tries to tag it through decays such as $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ the signal is subject to interference effects from $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$. In fact it is the existence of such interference effects we wish to exploit as a source of CP violation that make the direct determination of $`b`$ via a hadronic tag impossible.

Of course if CP violation were seen (i.e. $`d\overline{d}`$) then within the SM it must be the case that $`\varphi _30`$. As might therefore be expected, in the absence of $`b`$ we can use the rest of the information to establish a lower bound on $`\varphi _3`$. In particular, if we define $`Q\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _3`$ then we obtain the following bound on $`Q`$ and incidentally $`b`$:

$`QQ_{min}=(1+z)\left(1\sqrt{1y/(1+z)}\right)/2`$
$`\sqrt{1+z+|y|}\sqrt{u}1\sqrt{1+z|y|}`$ (1)
where $`1+z=(d(X)+\overline{d}(\overline{X}))/(2ac(X))`$, $`y=(d(X)\overline{d}(\overline{X}))/(2ac(X))`$ and $`u=b\overline{c}(X)/ac(X)`$.

In the case where $`z`$ is negative, an upper bound $`^\mathrm{?}`$ can also be placed on $`Q`$:

$`Q1+z`$ (2)
which is similar in form to the upper bound on $`Q`$ obtained from tree-penguin interference in $`BK\pi `$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Note that it can apply even if CP violation is absent however $`z`$ may only be negative if it happens that $`u4`$.

Motivation for these bounds can be found in Fig. 1 where we plot the relation between $`u`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ for the experimental inputs $`z=1.5`$ and $`y=0`$, $`1`$ and $`2`$ where the larger values of $`y`$ correspond to the smaller “lazy eight” curves. The boxes indicate the bounds established by the inequality eq. (1). Since $`y`$ is proportional to CP violation, it is clear that the most stringent inequality bounds obtain where CP violation is large. A useful property of these curves is that even though the strong phase difference is not explicitly given, it may be read off (up to a four fold ambiguity) since for a given value of $`(\varphi _3,u)`$ on the curve, the horizontal line through that point also intersects the curve at $`(\xi ^{},u)`$ where one of $`\{\xi ^{}`$ ,$`\pi \xi ^{}`$, $`\pi +\xi ^{}`$, $`\xi ^{}\}`$ is the strong phase difference.

Large CP violation is only possible when the two interfering amplitudes are similar in magnitude. Such a situation may happen if we consider a final state $`X`$ where $`D^0X`$ is DCS (e.g. $`K^+\pi ^{}`$). Thus, while $`a`$ is about two orders of magnitude greater than $`b`$ due to color suppression, this if offset by $`\overline{c}(X)`$ being about two orders of magnitude greater than $`c(x)`$ so $`b\overline{c}(X)ac(X)`$. It is obviously advantageous to experimentally study all modes of this kind in order to find the one which gives the largest lower bound on $`Q`$.

Of course we would like to determine $`\varphi _3`$ exactly rather than just establishing a bound for it. There are three possible approaches to obtaining this quantity if $`b`$ cannot be experimentally measured: First of all, one could use a theoretical model to estimate $`b`$. Second, one could use an analogous decay $`B^0K^0[\overline{D}K^+\pi ^{}]`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }[\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}]`$ where the cross channel is is not color enhanced and interference are $`30\%`$ (we will discuss this more below) or third of all, one can consider multiple $`D`$ decay modes each of which may decay with a different strong phase. In this last case I also include $`D`$ decays to a multi-body final state where each point in phase space may be considered as a separate “mode”.

## 3 Two Modes and Three Body Decays of $`D^0`$

If $`d`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ are measured for exactly two modes, then there are the same number of equations as unknowns and $`Q`$ may be determined up to some discrete ambiguity. Graphically, two general curves such as in Fig. 1 will intersect at up to 4 points so in this case there may be a 4-fold ambiguity in $`Q`$ therefore a 16-fold ambiguity in $`\varphi _3`$. If three or more modes are considered then the curves in the $`b\varphi _3`$ plane should only intersect at one point in the first quadrant of $`\varphi _3`$ so $`\varphi _3`$ has a 4-fold ambiguity.

In Fig. 2 we show the results of a sample calculation from $`^\mathrm{?}`$ where the modes: $`K^+\pi ^{}`$, $`K_S\pi ^0`$, $`K^+\rho ^{}`$, $`K^+a_1^{}`$, $`K_S\rho ^{}`$, $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ were considered. For the parameters of that calculation, the inner edge of the shaded region indicates the $`68\%`$ CL and the outer region indicates the $`95\%`$ CL given $`\widehat{N}=(numberofB^\pm )(acceptance)`$ = $`10^8`$. In this example it was found that with $`\widehat{N}=10^8`$ statistical errors in $`\varphi _3`$ were $`5^{}10^{}`$ for a variety of initial values of $`\varphi _3`$ and strong phases.

In order to determine $`\varphi _3`$ is is therefore advantageous to consider a number of modes. In addition to the different final states such as those considered above, we can also replace $`KK^{}`$ and $`DD^{}`$. Of course if we do both at once so that both sides have $`J0`$ then we need to do a more complicated angular analysis as considered by $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Note that here $`\varphi _3`$ is common but each case has a separate $`baxis`$. To Drive up additional modes we can also consider analogous decays where we replace the spectator with a $`\overline{d}`$ (i.e. $`B^0D^0K^0`$) or a $`ud`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_bD^0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). The point here is that we may be justified in putting these cases on a common $`b`$ axis.

Because the main point of combining multiple modes is to overcome the lack of knowledge of $`b`$, $`B^0K^0D`$ where the $`D`$ is decays to a state such as $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ may be a particularly important mode to use in this way since the dominant contribution is proportional to $`b`$ while $`a`$ is color suppressed in this channel $`^\mathrm{?}`$. As emphisized by $`^\mathrm{?}`$, the complimentary case where $`B^{}K^{}D^0`$ and $`D^0`$ decays to a CP eigenstate (e.g. $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$) and so the $`a`$ channel is much larger than the $`b`$ channel also gives the same kind of information since the amount of interference evident in the system determines $`b`$ without a strong dependence on $`\varphi _3`$.

An additional source of constraints that can be helpful may be obtained from a charm factory data which can constrain the strong phase differences between $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ decays as well as give definitive information concerning $`D\overline{D}`$ oscillations $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

Note that a number of the modes we consider are instances of three body final states. For a single three body mode (e.g. $`K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$) we can consider each of the points on the dalitz plot as a having a separate strong phase so clearly in principle there is enough information to determine $`\varphi _3`$. One can thus fit the data to a resonance model as in $`^\mathrm{?}`$ together with the overall strong and weak phase differences.

In this talk I would like to emphasize a different method of analysis based on the saturation of eq. (1). Regarding each point of the Dalitz plot as a separate mode, one may find the value of $`Q_{min}`$ in Eqn. (1) for each point of the Dalitz plot. Just as in the case of a number of discrete modes, the true value of $`Q`$ must exceed all lower bounds. In this case, however, because the strong phases due to resonances vary across the Dalitz plot, it is likely that the greatest value of $`Q_{min}`$ is in fact equal to $`Q`$.

In Fig. 3 I show a map “magic” points where $`Q=Q_{min}`$ on the Dalitz plot for the case of $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ using the model of $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that uses the data from E687 $`^\mathrm{?}`$ as input together with SU(3) to give the DCS channel. Here I have taken $`\varphi _3=60^{}`$ with an overall strong phase difference of $`0^{}`$ for the solid curve and $`60^{}`$ for the dashed curve.

## 4 The Influence of $`D\overline{D}`$ mixing

In the discussion so far we have explicitly assumed that $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ was negligible. In particular, since we often take advantage of interferences involving DCS decays which are $`O(1\%)`$ of the interfering CA decay, the total probability of mixing must be less than $`O(1\%)`$ for this case to remain valid. In fact, it has been suggested that the standard model may cause $`D\overline{D}`$ mixing at about this level $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In fact, it can be shown $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that the changes to $`d`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ from such mixing will be $`O(10\%)`$ which leads to an inherent error in the determineation of $`\varphi _3`$ of $`10^{}15^{}`$ ($`^\mathrm{?}`$).

In order to overcome this possible systematic error, there are two approaches:

1. Using information on the the time between the $`B^{}`$ decay and the subsequent $`D^0`$ decay, then the effects of possible mixing can be eliminated.
2. If the parameters of $`D\overline{D}`$ mixing are known independently, then they can be taken into account in interpreting the time integrated data

Indeed, if the mixing parameters and time dependent data is available, then one can in principle extract $`\varphi _3`$ from just one mode though most likely, the time dependence in the decay is too weak to make this a useful method.

Here I will emphasise the fact that if we have time dependent data, it is particularly simple to separate out the contributions of mixing and thus proceed with the analysis as in the absence of mixing at some cost in statistics.

The key point is that for $`D^0`$ the decay time is much shorter than the oscillation time and therefore it is valid to write

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}d(X)`$ $``$ $`(d_0(X)+d_1(X)\tau )e^\tau `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}\overline{d}(\overline{X})`$ $``$ $`(\overline{d}_0(\overline{X})+\overline{d}_1(\overline{X})\tau )e^\tau `$ (3)
where $`\tau =t\mathrm{\Gamma }_D`$. Thus $`d_0(X)`$ and $`\overline{d}_0(\overline{X})`$ would be the branching ratios absent mixing so if we extract them from the time dependence we may proceed as if there were no mixing.

This can be accomplished through weighting the data with $`w_0(\tau )=2\tau `$ so that

$`d_0={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}[d(\tau )w_0(\tau )]𝑑\tau ;\overline{d}_0={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}[\overline{d}(\tau )w_0(\tau )]𝑑\tau `$ (4)
Using this method more data would be required to obtain the same statistical results as in the unmixed case. In the unmixed case where $`d_1=0`$ one could obtain $`d_0`$ more effectively by taking the time integrated rate. Thus in the unmixed case if a measurement of $`d_0`$ is based on $`n`$ events, the uncertainty in $`d_0`$ is given by: $`(\mathrm{\Delta }d_0)^2/d_0^2=1/n`$. In the mixed case, using eqn. (4) the uncertainty is $`(\mathrm{\Delta }d_0)^2/d_0^2=(2/n)\left(1+d_1/d_0\right)^2`$. Since $`d_1O(d_0/10)`$, this means that roughly twice the data is needed to have the same statistical power as in the unmixed case. In order to gauge the precision of time measurement required, we can smear out the distribution in eq. (4) with a Gaussian resolution function of the form $`r(\tau ,\tau ^{})e^{\frac{(\tau \tau ^{})^2}{2\sigma ^2}}`$ where $`\tau `$ is the actual time of the decay, $`\tau ^{}`$ is the measured time of the decay and $`\sigma `$ is the resolution (all in units of $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_D`$). Since $`r`$ is symmetric under $`\tau \tau ^{}`$, the fact that $`w`$ is linear in $`\tau `$ implies eq. (4) will still be true for $`\tau ^{}`$ but now the error is:

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }d_0)^2/d_0^2=(2/n)(1+\sigma ^2)\left(1+d_1/d_0\right)^2`$ (5)
As can be seen, the number of events required is not adversely effected if $`\sigma 1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_D`$ but will be significantly degraded otherwise.

## 5 Conclusions

In conclusion, in the $`B^\pm `$ system direct CP violation in the decay $`D^0K^\pm `$ may provide a means of determining $`\varphi _3`$ with $`10^810^9`$ $`B`$ mesons. The key is to observe the correct $`D^0`$ or combination of $`D^0`$ decay modes. If large CP violation is seen in any one mode, it may establish a lower bound on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _3`$ while data from multiple modes or three body modes can be used to determine $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _3`$.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge useful discussions with M. Gronau, D. London and R. Sinha. This research was supported in part by US DOE Contract Nos. DE-FG02-94ER40817 (ISU).

## References


text:
# FTUV-01-0111 IFIC/01-1 March 01 Dynamical Symmetry Breaking in Warped Compactifications

## 1 Introduction

The origin of the electroweak symmetry breaking is one of the most important questions in particle physics. In the Standard Model (SM) it is achieved by a nonzero vacuum expectation value of a fundamental scalar Higgs field. However, the squared-mass of a fundamental scalar field receives quadratically divergent radiative corrections, hence suffers from the so-called hierarchy problem if the cutoff scale is much higher than the electroweak scale. This is indeed the case in the SM, where a large hierarchy exists between the electroweak scale ($`100`$ GeV) and the Planck scale ($`M_P10^{18}`$ GeV).

It has been recently realized that this hierarchy of scales could have its origin in the presence of extra dimensions with nontrivial space-time geometries. If we live in $`D=4+\delta `$ dimensions, there is the possibility that the Planck scale $`M_P`$ is actually an effective four dimensional scale determined by the fundamental scale of the $`(4+\delta )`$-theory, $`M`$, and the geometry of space-time. An explicit example of this is the Randall and Sundrum model , where the hierarchy problem is solved by introducing a warped extra dimension. The space-time is a slice of $`AdS_5`$ with one extra dimension compactified on an orbifold, $`S^1/Z_2`$, of radius $`r_c`$. The metric is given by

$$ds^2=e^{2k|y|}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2$$
(1)
where $`y`$ is the fifth coordinate, $`0y\pi r_c`$, $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$ are four dimensional indices, $`k`$ is the $`AdS_5`$ curvature of order of the Planck scale, and $`e^{2k|y|}`$ is called the warp factor. The Randall-Sundrum scenario consists of two three-branes located at the orbifold fix points $`y_{}=0,\pi r_c`$. From (1) one can see that the warp factor determines the physical energy scale at the position $`y`$ from the point of view of a 4$`\mathrm{D}`$ observer. Thus assuming $`kr_c12`$, the physical scale of the brane located at $`y_{}=\pi r_c`$ is given by $`ke^{\pi kr_c}(1001000)`$ GeV. This sets the scale on the brane to be the electroweak scale and solves the hierarchy problem.

The hierarchy problem can also be avoided if the Higgs is a composite object rather than a fundamental field, and ceases to be a dynamical degree of freedom not much above the electroweak scale. Since the top quark is the heavier fermion in the standard model, it has been the first candidate to form the composite Higgs, bound out of the third generation weak doublet $`\psi _L`$ and the right-handed top field, $`t_R`$. Such composite Higgs arises naturally in the presence of some strongly coupled four-quark operators. In four dimensional top condensate models, though, there is a problem when one tries to accommodate the top quark mass in the experimental range as well as electroweak symmetry breaking at the correct scale, because the large top Yukawa coupling gives a top quark too heavy ,. This problem can be solved if a new vector-like fermion is introduced with the same quantum numbers of $`t_R`$, which becomes the appropriate constituent of the Higgs boson together with $`\psi _L`$ . While this mechanism neatly accommodates both the measured top quark mass and a Higgs vev of the electroweak scale, the drawback is that one has to include additional structures to originate the non-renormalizable four-quark interactions.

In this work we will show that in the Randall-Sundrum scenario it is possible to construct a phenomenologically successful effective theory with no fundamental scalars, including just the symmetry group $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_W\times U(1)_Y`$ and the SM fermion and gauge boson fields. Dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking in the presence of flat extra dimensions has already been considered in the literature -. In particular, it has been noticed that the ingredients needed for dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking are naturally present in the SM, provided the gauge bosons and some fermions propagate in extra dimensions compactified at the $``$ TeV scale . Four-quark operators are always induced by QCD in compact dimensions, via the exchange of the Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of the gluons. Moreover, by allowing the right-handed top quark to live in the bulk, its KK modes will naturally play the role of the required vector-like quark.

The mechanism outlined above does not work in $`D=5`$ flat space because the interchange of gluon KK excitations is not strong enough to form the quark condensate. It is necessary to assume a higher dimensionality ($`D6`$), thus the degeneracy of the gluon KK modes makes the relevant four-quark operator stronger. However, in the Randall-Sundrum scenario the coupling between KK gauge bosons and fermions (both living in the bulk and on the TeV brane) can be larger than in the flat space case , so one extra dimension is enough to trigger dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking without introducing fundamental scalar fields.

In section 2 we present a minimal set-up which breaks correctly the electroweak symmetry, and we briefly review the KK decomposition of massless gauge boson and fermion fields in the Randall-Sundrum scenario. In the next section, we use these results to construct an effective theory with four-fermion operators, and we argue that the binding strength of such operators is large enough to form bound states, one of which will be identified as the Higgs field. We compute the effective scalar Lagrangian in section 4. Finally, we discuss fermion masses both in the simplest model (section 5) and in an alternative scenario which provides an explanation of the observed fermion mass hierarchies (section 6). We conclude in section 7.

## 2 The simplest set-up

In the Randall-Sundrum model  only gravity propagates in the 5D bulk, while the SM fields are confined on the TeV brane. Subsequently, the phenomenological consequences of placing the SM fields in the bulk have been extensively studied -.

In this section, we describe a minimal set-up which leads to dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking without the need for a fundamental Higgs field. We begin by studying a toy model with one generation of fermions, the third one, and postpone the discussion of flavor symmetry breaking to section 5. We consider that gluons live in the 5D bulk, so their KK modes strongly coupled to quarks can induce the formation of bound states. As we will see in section 5, in order to obtain the correct value of the top mass also the right-handed top quark should propagate in 5D. For simplicity, we assume that the remaining third generation fermions are confined on the TeV brane, $`y_{}=\pi r_c`$.

Since the right-handed top carries hypercharge, the $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge boson propagates in the bulk, while the $`SU(2)_W`$ gauge bosons can either reside on the TeV brane or propagate in the bulk, because we do not require the components of weak doublet fermions to be in different places along the fifth dimension. For definiteness we consider that the $`SU(2)_W`$ gauge bosons also live in 5D, but our conclusions are completely independent of this assumption.

We are going to study the dynamical generation of masses through the condensation of a pair quark-antiquark, so we shall use the KK decomposition of 5$`\mathrm{D}`$ massless fields in the Randall-Sundrum model.

### 2.1 Fermion field

Consider a 5$`\mathrm{D}`$ massless fermion field $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)`$. Compactifying on an orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$ we can choose the zero mode to be a left- or right-handed fermion. Imposing that the bulk fermion is even under this compactification,

$$\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=+\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y),$$
(2)
only the right-handed zero mode survives. We will identify this zero mode with the right-handed top quark $`t_R`$. The Kaluza Klein decomposition for a bulk fermion with boundary conditions (2) can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{B}}^{(n)}\left(x\right)\xi _n\left(y\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{B}}^{(n)}\left(x\right)\eta _n\left(y\right)\right]`$ (3)
where

$`\xi _n\left(y\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{1e^{\pi kr_c}}}}e^{\frac{k}{2}|\pi r_cy|}e^{\frac{3}{2}k|y|}\mathrm{sin}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_n}{k}}\left(e^{k|y|}1\right)\right\},`$
$`\eta _n\left(y\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{1e^{\pi kr_c}}}}e^{\frac{k}{2}|\pi r_cy|}e^{\frac{3}{2}k|y|}\mathrm{cos}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_n}{k}}\left(e^{k|y|}1\right)\right\},`$ (4)
and $`m_n=n\pi k/(e^{\pi kr_c}1)0`$. For the zero mode

$$\xi _0\left(y\right)=0,\eta _0\left(y\right)=\sqrt{\frac{k}{1e^{\pi kr_c}}}e^{\frac{k}{2}|\pi r_cy|}e^{\frac{3}{2}k|y|}.$$
(5)
Note that massless bulk fermions are localized near the TeV brane, $`y_{}=\pi r_c`$, due to the factor $`e^{k|\pi r_cy|}`$ of the wave function for all modes.

A 5D Lorentz invariant gauge theory has no chiral anomalies because the fermion representation is vector-like. However, the boundary conditions imposed above prevent the existence of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ zero-mode and we have to worry about anomalies in the bulk. This problem can be solved by including a Chern-Simons term in the action, which makes the scenario presented in this paper anomaly-free .

### 2.2 Gauge bosons

The bulk gauge bosons in the Randall-Sundrum scenario have been discussed in . We work in the gauge $`^\mu A_\mu =0`$ and $`A_5=0`$, with orbifold conditions

$`_5A_\mu \left(x,y=y_{}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}=A_5\left(x,y=y_{}\right).`$ (6)
Then the KK decomposition of $`A_\mu (x,y)`$ is given by

$$A_\mu (x,y)=\underset{n}{}A_\mu ^{(n)}(x)\chi _n\left(y\right),$$
(7)
where $`\chi _n\left(y\right)`$ is a linear combination of first order Bessel functions, $`J_1`$ and $`Y_1`$,

$`\chi _n\left(y\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2k}e^{k|y|}}{N_n}}\left[J_1\left(\lambda _ne^{k|y|}\right)+\alpha _nY_1\left(\lambda _ne^{k|y|}\right)\right],`$ (8)
with $`\lambda _nM_n/k0`$. The mass eigenvalues $`M_n`$ are determined by the condition $`_y\chi _n\left(\pi r_c\right)=0`$, which leads to the equation

$$J_0\left(\lambda _n\right)Y_0\left(\lambda _ne^{\pi kr_c}\right)=Y_0\left(\lambda _n\right)J_0\left(\lambda _ne^{\pi kr_c}\right).$$
(9)
The masses $`M_n`$ grow linearly with $`n`$, being the first excited modes in the TeV range ($`M_12.5ke^{\pi kr_c}`$, $`M_25.6ke^{\pi kr_c}`$, …).

Continuity of $`_y\chi _n\left(y\right)`$ at $`y=0`$ gives

$$\alpha _n=\frac{J_0\left(\lambda _n\right)}{Y_0\left(\lambda _n\right)}$$
(10)
and $`N_n`$ is a normalization constant which in the limit $`M_nk`$ and $`e^{\pi kr_c}1`$ can be approximated by

$$N_ne^{k\pi r_c}J_1\left(\lambda _ne^{k\pi r_c}\right).$$
(11)
Several comments are in order. The wave function of the zero mode is $`\chi _0=1/\sqrt{\pi r_c}`$, independent of the fifth coordinate, so it couples equally to both boundaries with strength $`g=g_{5D}/\sqrt{\pi r_c}`$, being $`g_{5D}`$ the 5D gauge coupling. On the contrary, the excited modes are localized near the TeV boundary and have different couplings to fermions located on different branes, since these couplings are determined by the eigenfunctions $`\chi _n\left(y\right)`$ near the boundaries. At the $`y_{}=\pi r_c`$ boundary the term in (8) proportional to $`J_1`$ dominates while at the other brane the eigenfunction can be well approximated by the $`Y_1`$ term. Within these approximations, the coupling of a gauge boson KK mode $`n`$ to 4D fermions is (for $`kr_c12`$):

$`g^{(n)}/g`$ $`8.4`$ for the TeV boundary
$`g^{(n)}/g`$ $`.2/\sqrt{n}`$ for the $`M_P`$ boundary (12)
The strong coupling of the KK gauge modes to fermions located on the TeV brane puts a restrictive constraint on this set-up. In the limit where the KK tower exchanges can be described as a set of contact interactions, they lead to dimension six operators which can be constrained by electroweak precision data, yielding a bound on the mass of the first gauge boson KK mode of order 20 TeV . Such a large scale may be a problem for the consistency of the theory, and seems to disfavor this scenario. However it is interesting to consider it further, because the simplicity of the model allows to make definite calculations that illustrate generic features of dynamical symmetry breaking in warped compactifications.

We have seen that the KK excitations of the SM gauge bosons couple strongly to the fermions located at the TeV brane and thus can produce bound states. The analysis for bulk fermions is more involved, however it has been shown that the fermion zero-mode couples strongly to the first KK gauge boson excitation, with $`g^{(1)}/g4.1`$ (the coupling for higher $`n`$ is weaker) . Although this result is obtained in the effective 4D theory, it seems to indicate that the coupling of bulk SM gauge bosons to the bulk fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ may be also strong enough to form composite states involving the latter.

## 3 Bound states

In this section we study the formation of bound states in detail. The 5D gauge field theory is non renormalizable, and it remains weakly coupled beneath a local cut-off which depends on the position in the extra dimension, of order $`ke^{ky}`$ . Moreover, at energies somewhat larger than this scale the excited gravitons are strongly coupled and string/M-theoretic excitations should appear, which lie outside the domain of the 5D field theory. Therefore near the TeV brane we expect the compositeness scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, to be given approximately by the cut-off of the effective 5D theory, not far above the scale of the first gauge boson KK excitations. Below the compositeness scale we integrate out the heavy gauge boson KK modes and approximate the resulting effective action by local four-fermion operators. These operators involve both, fermions $`\psi (x)`$ confined at the TeV brane and the bulk fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)`$.

In order to construct the effective 5D theory which contains four-fermion operators we need the propagator for the bulk gauge bosons, given by

$$0|A_\mu (x^{},y^{})A_\nu (x,y)|0=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{2k}{N_n^2}e^{ip^\mu (xx^{})_\mu }e^{(k|y|+k|y^{}|)}\underset{n}{}T_n(y^{})\frac{ig^{\mu \nu }}{p^\mu p_\mu M_n^2}T_n(y)$$
(13)
where we have defined

$$T_n(y)J_1\left(\lambda _ne^{k|y|}\right)+\alpha _nY_1\left(\lambda _ne^{k|y|}\right).$$
(14)
Let us first consider the action corresponding to the exchange of gauge boson KK excitations between fermions confined at the TeV brane, $`\psi (x)`$, which reads

$`𝒮^{5D}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{5\mathrm{D}}^2{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle }d^4x^{}{\displaystyle }dy{\displaystyle }dy^{}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}e^{iq^\mu (xx^{})_\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{N_n^2}}e^{(k|y|+k|y^{}|)}T_n(y^{})`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^{\mu \nu }}{q^2M_n^2}}T_n(y)(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu T^r\psi )_{x^{},y^{}}\delta (y^{}\pi r_c)(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\nu T^r\psi )_{x,y}\delta (y\pi r_c)`$
where the five dimensional gauge coupling is related to the effective four dimensional one $`g`$ by $`g_{5\mathrm{D}}=g\sqrt{\pi r_c}`$.

At scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ above $`M_1`$ the action contains both light gauge boson KK modes and four-fermion operators obtained by integrating out the KK gauge bosons heavier than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, given by

$`𝒮_{eff}^{5D}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}g_{5\mathrm{D}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_n^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle }dy\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}ke^{k|y|}{\displaystyle \frac{T_n(y)}{N_n}}(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu T^r\psi )_{x,y}\delta (y\pi r_c)`$ (16)
$`\left\{{\displaystyle 𝑑y^{}e^{k|y^{}|}\frac{T_n(y^{})}{N_n}(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu T^r\psi )_{x,y^{}}\delta (y^{}\pi r_c)}\right\},`$
with the sum over KK modes starting at $`M_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The integration in $`y^{}`$ is trivial due to the delta function. Since we evaluate $`T_n(y)`$ at the TeV brane, we can neglect the term proportional to $`Y_1`$ in (14). Using the approximate form of the normalization constant $`N_n`$ given in eq. (11) and after Fierz transform, we obtain the familiar form of a Nambu-Jona-Lasinio interaction

$`_{eff}^{5D}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\delta (y\pi r_c)(\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L)(\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R),`$ (17)
where we have approximated the sum over KK modes by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_n^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}.`$ (18)
For the $`SU(N)`$ gauge groups, the coefficient $`c`$ is given by

$$c=3k\pi r_cg_N^2\left\{C_2(\overline{\psi }_L)+C_2(\psi _R)C_2(\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R)\right\}$$
(19)
where $`g_N`$ is the 4D coupling constant of $`SU(N)`$ and $`C_2(r)`$ the second Casimir invariant for the representation $`r`$ of the gauge group. For $`U(1)_Y`$,

$$c=3k\pi r_cg_1^2Y_{\overline{\psi }_L}Y_{\psi _R}$$
(20)
being $`g_1`$ the 4D $`U(1)_Y`$ coupling and $`Y_r`$ the hypercharge of the fermion $`r`$.

Obviously, four-fermion operators involving quarks (the left-handed $`SU(2)_W`$ doublet $`\psi _L^3`$ and the right-handed bottom $`d_R^3`$) are more strongly coupled and therefore more likely to form bound states. The most attractive channels are scalars: an $`SU(2)_W`$ doublet $`\overline{\psi }_L^3d_R^3`$ and a charged color triplet $`\overline{\psi }_L^3\psi _R^{3c}`$, with binding strength proportional to $`3k\pi r_c(\frac{4}{3}g_3^2\frac{1}{18}g_1^2)`$ and $`3k\pi r_c(\frac{2}{3}g_3^2+\frac{3}{4}g_2^2\frac{1}{36}g_1^2)`$, respectively.

In  it was shown that there is a critical value of the four-quark operator coefficient above which this attractive interaction gives rise to a bound state. In the large $`N_c`$ limit, the critical value is $`8\pi ^2/N_c`$. For $`kr_c1112`$, we easily obtain four-quark operator couplings larger than the critical one, thus there are bound states made of quarks located on the TeV brane. This is an expected result, because we have seen that the coupling of the excited modes of bulk gauge bosons to TeV brane fermions is stronger than the zero mode coupling.

Notice that the binding strength of the four-quark operators is supercritical for a wide range of the gauge couplings $`g_i`$. This is reassuring, because it means that the formation of bound states is not very sensitive to the running of the couplings above the TeV scale, which is still an open question in the Randall-Sundrum scenario ,.

If these bound states acquire vevs we have to face some phenomenological problems: $`\overline{\psi }_L^3\psi _L^{3c}`$ would break charge and color, and since the Yukawa coupling of the doublet $`\overline{\psi }_L^3d_R^3`$ to its constituents is typically large, the bottom quark would be too heavy, as it occurs in four dimensional top condensate models . We will address these issues in the next section.

Let us consider now the action corresponding to the exchange of gauge boson KK excitations among fermions confined at the TeV brane and the bulk fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)`$,

$`𝒮^{5D}=g_{5\mathrm{D}}^2{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle }d^4x^{}{\displaystyle }dy{\displaystyle }dy^{}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}e^{iq^\mu (xx^{})_\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{N_n^2}}e^{(k|y|+k|y^{}|)}`$
$`T_n(y^{}){\displaystyle \frac{g^{\mu \nu }}{q^2M_n^2}}T_n(y)(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu T^r\mathrm{\Psi })_{x^{},y^{}}(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\nu T^r\psi )_{x,y}\delta (y\pi r_c)`$ (21)
In order to approximate this non-local interaction by four-fermion operators we use an interesting property of the Randall-Sundrum model: the warp factor produces a shift of a bulk field wave function depending on its 5D mass, so that massless fermionic fields are localized near the TeV brane, as can be seen from the 4D KK decomposition of fermion fields (4). Thus we can approximate the integral over the fifth coordinate $`y^{}`$ by a delta function $`\delta (y^{}\pi r_c)`$. This is just an approximation, but it is justified by the warp factor, a feature not present in flat space scenarios.

Analogously to the brane fermion case, the effective action at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is obtained by integrating out the gauge boson KK modes heavier than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and after Fierz transform we get

$`_{eff}^{5D}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{k\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\delta (y\pi r_c)(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R\psi _L^3)(\overline{\psi }_L^3\mathrm{\Psi }_R),`$ (22)
with $`c`$ as defined in eqs. (19) and (20). The factor $`1/k`$ appears for dimensional reasons, but it will be compensated by the normalization constant of the bulk fermion field, eqs. (3)-(5).

The light bound states would be four-dimensional scalars, namely $`H\overline{\psi }_L^3\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$, which we will identify with the Higgs doublet, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_Rd_L^{3c}`$. The binding strength of the corresponding four-quark operators is $`3k\pi r_c(\frac{4}{3}g_3^2+\frac{1}{9}g_1^2)`$ and $`3k\pi r_c(\frac{2}{3}g_3^2+\frac{2}{9}g_1^2)`$, so $`H`$ is more deeply bound than the $`SU(2)_W`$ singlet $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_Rd_L^{3c}`$. The $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ field in eq.(22) is five dimensional (although the delta function forces $`y=\pi r_c`$), so it is not possible to apply the result of  on the critical coupling in a straightforward manner, because it was obtained by solving the gap equation in four dimensions. However, since the bulk fermion is localized in the region where the first KK mode of the gauge bosons couples strongly to the fermion zero-mode, we expect that these bound states are also produced. We assume that they are, and proceed with the analysis of the phenomenological implications of this scenario.

Finally, there is also the possibility of forming a five-dimensional gauge singlet composite scalar, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$. However since its wave function vanishes at the TeV boundary, there is no quartic coupling involving this singlet and the previously discussed four-dimensional bound states, and thus it has no effect in the low energy effective theory.

Therefore in the Randall-Sundrum scenario, with only one extra dimension, strongly coupled four-quark operators are naturally induced and give rise to 4D bound states. The next step is to compute the parameters of the composite fields produced by this condensation of quark pairs.

## 4 Effective theory in 5D

To derive the low energy effective Lagrangian we follow the procedure of ref.. We use the auxiliary field method to construct scalar fields from a pair of quarks and we assume that they become propagating degrees of freedom below the compositeness scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We consider just the most deeply-bound channels, which lead to the lightest scalars, more likely to get negative squared-masses and acquire vevs. Thus we define

$$H=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\sqrt{\frac{c_H}{k}}(\overline{\psi }_L^3\mathrm{\Psi }_R)$$
(23)
and

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\sqrt{c_\varphi }(\overline{\psi }_L^3d_R^3),$$
(24)
where $`c_H=3\pi kr_c(\frac{4}{3}g_3^2+\frac{1}{9}g_1^2)`$ and $`c_\varphi =3\pi kr_c(\frac{4}{3}g_3^2\frac{1}{18}g_1^2)`$. Introducing these definitions in (17) and (22) we obtain the following effective Lagrangian at the compositeness scale

$`^{5D}[\mathrm{\Lambda }]=\delta (y\pi r_c)\left\{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{c_H}{k}}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R\psi _L^3)H+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2H^{}H\sqrt{c_\varphi }(\overline{d}_R^3\psi _L^3)\varphi +\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\varphi ^{}\varphi \right\}.`$ (25)
At scales $`\mu <\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the Yukawa interactions will induce kinetic terms for the scalars, as well as an effective potential which includes mass and quartic terms:

$`^{5D}[\mu ]=\delta (y\pi r_c)\left\{Z_H(\mu )D^\nu H^{}D_\nu H+Z_\varphi (\mu )^\nu \varphi ^{}_\nu \varphi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{c_H}{k}}}H\overline{\psi }_L^3\mathrm{\Psi }_R\sqrt{c_\varphi }(\overline{d}_R^3\psi _L^3)\varphi V(\mu )\right\}`$ (26)
where

$`V(\mu )=\delta (y\pi r_c)\left\{M_H^2H^{}H+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _H}{2}}(H^{}H)^2+m_\varphi ^2\varphi ^{}\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\varphi }{2}}(\varphi ^{}\varphi )^2+\lambda _{\varphi H}H^{}H\varphi ^{}\varphi \right\}`$ (27)
We compute the parameters of the effective Lagrangian $`^{5D}[\mu ]`$ in the large $`N_c`$ limit, where only one fermion loop contributes. We thus need the bulk fermion propagator, given by

$`0|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^{},y^{})\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x,y)|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}e^{ip^\mu (xx^{})_\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{1e^{\pi kr_c}}}e^{\frac{k}{2}(|\pi r_cy|+|\pi r_cy^{}|)}e^{\frac{3}{2}(k|y|+k|y^{}|)}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{1+\delta _{n0}}}`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(c_n(y^{})P_R+s_n(y^{})P_L){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu p_\mu +\gamma _5m_n}{p^\mu p_\mu m_n^2}}(s_n(y)P_R+c_n(y)P_L)`$
where $`c_n(y)=\mathrm{cos}\left\{\frac{m_n}{k}\left(e^{k|y|}1\right)\right\}`$ and $`s_n(y)`$ is defined analogously. At leading order in the $`1/N_c`$ expansion the mass parameters are

$`M_H^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2N_cc_H{\displaystyle \frac{4}{1e^{\pi kr_c}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{i}{k_\nu k^\nu m_n^2}}`$ (29)
$`m_\varphi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^24N_cc_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{i}{k_\nu k^\nu }}`$ (30)
The above integrals are defined with a cutoff at the compositeness scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Assuming that the number of KK modes at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`n_{KK}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=(e^{\pi kr_c}1)\mathrm{\Lambda }/\pi k`$, is large enough, we can approximate the sum over KK modes by an integral, $`_n𝑑n`$. Using that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{n_{KK}}}𝑑n{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑p{\displaystyle \frac{p}{p^2+(m_n/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{in_{KK}}{16\pi ^2}}f_1`$ (31)
where

$$f_1=_0^1𝑑q_0^1p^2𝑑p^2\frac{1}{p^2+q^2}0.63.$$
(32)
we obtain

$`M_H^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(1n_{KK}(\mathrm{\Lambda })N_c{\displaystyle \frac{c_H}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{1e^{\pi kr_c}}}\right)`$ (33)
$`m_\varphi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(1N_c{\displaystyle \frac{c_\varphi }{4\pi ^2}}\right)`$ (34)
From eqs. (33),(34) we see that the Higgs mass $`M_H^2`$ can be negative while $`m_\varphi ^2`$ remains positive, because the contribution of the bulk fermion KK modes in the loop decreases $`M_H^2`$. Since the compositeness scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is above the electroweak scale, $`c_H`$ should be close to the critical value for which $`M_H^2`$ becomes negative. In this region, $`H`$ acquires a vev and provides a positive contribution to $`m_\varphi ^2`$ through their coupling, $`\lambda _{\varphi H}`$. The resulting mass $`m_\varphi ^2`$ is then expected to stay positive and large. By the same argument, other bound states less deeply-bound than $`H`$ and $`\varphi `$ will also have positive squared-masses, preventing charge and color breaking, as well as a too heavy bottom quark. Therefore, naturally we obtain that the only composite field which acquires a vev is $`H\overline{\psi }_L^3\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$, due to the KK excitations of one of its constituents. These excitations will give also a natural framework for a light top mass, as we will see in the next section.

The wave function renormalization and self-coupling of the Higgs in the large $`N_c`$ limit are given by

$`Z_H`$ $`=`$ $`N_cc_H{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1e^{\pi kr_c}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{i}{k_\mu k^\mu (k_\nu k^\nu m_n^2)}}`$ (35)
$`\lambda _H`$ $`=`$ $`8N_cc_H^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^{\pi kr_c}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}(1)^{n_1+n_2}\frac{i}{(k_\nu k^\nu m_{n_1}^2)(k_\nu k^\nu m_{n_2}^2)}}.`$ (36)
Again, we approximate the sums over KK modes by integrals and we find

$`Z_H`$ $`=`$ $`N_cc_H{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^{\pi kr_c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{KK}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{8\pi ^2}}f_2`$ (37)
$`\lambda _H`$ $`=`$ $`n_{KK}(\mathrm{\Lambda })^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_H}{1e^{\pi kr_c}}}\right)^2f_3`$ (38)
where <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Note that these integrals are the same of  with $`f_1=F_3(L),f_2=F_1(L),f_3=F_5(L)`$, where $`L(TeV)^1`$ is the length of the fifth dimension

$`f_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑q{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑p^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2+q^2}}2.26`$ (39)
$`f_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑q{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑q^{}{\displaystyle _0^1}p^2𝑑p^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p^2+q^2)(p^2+q^2)}}2.71.`$ (40)
Redefining $`H\sqrt{Z_H}H`$ to obtain a canonical kinetic term, the Higgs mass becomes

$`\overline{M}_H^2={\displaystyle \frac{M_H^2}{Z_H}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{f_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2(1e^{\pi kr_c})}{N_cc_Hn_{KK}}}f_1\right)`$ (41)
and the quartic coupling

$`\overline{\lambda }_H={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _H}{Z_H^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{32\pi ^2}{N_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_3}{f_2^2}}60.`$ (42)
In this scenario we have a heavy Higgs boson with a large (non-perturbative) quartic coupling, which is generic from top mode scenarios. Having a heavy Higgs boson is not in contradiction with data, nor with triviality bounds because the cut-off of the effective theory, the compositeness scale, is very low. Regarding the unitarity bound from the longitudinal WW scattering cross section, the Higgs mass we obtain at tree level, $`m_H=v/\sqrt{\overline{\lambda }_H}`$, is above this bound. However, with such a large quartic self coupling we cannot trust the tree level relation between the mass and the vev of the Higgs, and we can only take it as a rough estimate of the Higgs mass.

Next-to-leading order corrections in the $`N_c`$ expansion (i.e., contributions from gauge bosons and composite scalar loops) could be included by evolving the couplings from the compositeness scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ down to the electroweak scale. To do so, we would need the $`\beta `$-functions for the four-dimensional SM couplings in the Randall-Sundrum scenario, which have not been computed yet. However we do not expect that next-to-leading effects would change qualitatively our results.

## 5 Fermion Masses

In this section we discuss the generation of fermion masses within the simplest set-up described in sec. 2. First, we calculate the top quark mass and then we include the other two generations in the model.

### 5.1 Top Mass

To compute the top quark mass we have to canonically normalize the Higgs kinetic term in the effective 5D Lagrangian (26) and integrate $`_{eff}^{5D}`$ over the fifth dimension $`y`$ to obtain the 4D effective Lagrangian. We find

$`^{4D}y_tH\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R(x,\pi r_c)\psi _L^3(x)`$ (43)
where the top Yukawa coupling $`y_t`$ is given by

$`y_t=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{c_H}{Z_H(1e^{\pi kr_c})}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}\pi }{\sqrt{N_cn_{KK}f_1}}}.`$ (44)
Recall that $`n_{KK}`$ is the number of KK modes produced at the compositeness scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus we obtain that the top Yukawa coupling is suppressed by the factor $`\sqrt{n_{KK}}`$, and turns out to be order one for $`n_{KK}10`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10M_1`$, with $`M_1`$ the mass of the first gauge boson KK excitation. This result is also generic in top condensate models with flat extra dimensions , avoiding a too heavy top quark typical of four dimensional top condensate models.

The zero mode of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R(x,\pi r_c)`$ becomes the four-dimensional right-handed top quark, $`t_R`$. Taking into account the KK decomposition of the bulk fermion (4), when the Higgs acquires a vev $`H^0=v/\sqrt{2}`$ we obtain the following mass matrix for the $`t_L`$ component of $`\psi _L`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ KK modes:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\overline{t}_L& \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L^{(1)}& \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L^{(2)}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}y_t\frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}& y_tv& y_tv& y_tv& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \frac{\pi k}{e^{\pi kr_c}1}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \frac{2\pi k}{e^{\pi kr_c}1}& 0& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}t_R\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_R^{(1)}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_R^{(2)}\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)$$
(45)
The diagonal entries are the usual KK mass terms. The top mass is given by the lowest eigenvalue of this matrix. To compute it, we can perturbatively diagonalize the mass matrix, using that $`m_n=n\pi ke^{\pi kr_c}>v`$ because KK excitations have not been observed at the moment. Thus, an expansion in $`\left(\frac{v}{\pi ke^{\pi kr_c}}\right)^21`$ is justified and within this approximation the lowest eigenvalue is

$$m_t=\frac{y_tv}{\sqrt{2}}\left[1𝒪\left(\frac{v}{\pi ke^{\pi kr_c}}\right)^2\right],$$
(46)
which gives easily a top mass in the experimental range $`170`$ GeV for $`n_{KK}10`$.

### 5.2 Flavor Symmetry Breaking

Once we have accommodated the electroweak symmetry breaking scale and the top mass, the next step is to generate masses for the remaining quarks and leptons of the Standard Model. The simplest possibility is that the fermions of the first two generations are confined at the TeV brane. Then, there would be three degenerate Higgs doublets $`H^i\overline{\psi }_L^i\mathrm{\Psi }_R,(i=1,2,3)`$, which obtain a vev and break the $`U(2)_\psi \times U(2)_u`$ flavor symmetry, leading to two Nambu-Goldstone bosons, besides the one eaten by the electroweak gauge bosons. Obviously, it is necessary a source of flavor symmetry breaking. When fermions are located near the TeV brane, higher-dimensional operators are suppressed by the multi-TeV scale, so generically there would be four-quark operators of the type

$$\frac{\eta _i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}(\overline{\psi }_L^i\mathrm{\Psi }_R)(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R\psi _L^i),$$
(47)
where the coefficients $`\eta _i`$ are $`𝒪(1)`$ and can be treated perturbatively. We have seen that the squared-mass of a composite field depends on the strength of the interaction between its constituents (see eq.(33)), thus assuming that the coefficient $`\eta _3`$ is slightly larger than the others, it is possible that only $`H^3`$ gets a vev, giving a mass of the electroweak scale just to the top quark. The rest of bound states may be quite heavy, even with small differences among the flavor symmetry breaking coefficients $`\eta _i`$.

Of course, if all higher-dimensional operators consistent with the SM symmetry are only suppressed by the multi-TeV scale, flavor-changing effects and proton decay become a problem, much as in the original Randall-Sundrum set-up. We do not attempt to solve these problems here, and we just assume that dangerous flavor-changing and baryon number violating operators are suppressed by some mechanism of the underlying fundamental theory.

If the only light composite scalar is $`H^3`$, to produce the observed pattern of fermion masses and mixings we shall consider the presence of the effective operators

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R\psi _L^3)\left(\lambda _{ij}^u\overline{\psi }_L^iu_R^j+\lambda _{ij}^d\overline{\psi }_L^ii\sigma _2d_R^j+\lambda _{ij}^e\overline{l}_L^ii\sigma _2e_R^j\right),`$ (48)
which would lead to Yukawa couplings of the $`H^3`$ doublet to the SM fermions. As usual, large hierarchies in the coefficients $`\lambda _{ij}`$ should be assumed in order to explain the observed fermion masses.

## 6 The Standard Model in the Bulk

The minimal model studied in the previous sections should be regarded as a ‘working proof’ of dynamical symmetry breaking in the Randall-Sundrum scenario, but it is not by any means unique. A more natural possibility is that all SM fermions propagate in the 5D bulk. In this case, the approximation of the higher-dimensional gauge interactions by local four-fermion operators is questionable and the issue of whether dynamical symmetry breaking really takes place or not is highly non trivial . A careful study of such dynamical problem is beyond the scope of this paper, but given the strong coupling between gauge boson KK modes and the zero mode of fermions localized near the TeV brane, we argue that the condensation of 5D massless quarks seems very likely.

The localization of fermion fields living in a slice of $`AdS_5`$ depends on its 5D masses . Left-handed (right-handed) zero modes of fermions with bulk mass terms $`M_{5D}/k<1/2`$ ($`M_{5D}/k>1/2`$) (in particular massless fermions, as we have seen) live near the TeV brane, while the left-handed (right-handed) zero modes of fermions with $`M_{5D}/k>1/2`$ ($`M_{5D}/k<1/2`$) are localized near the Planck boundary. For left-handed (right-handed) zero modes $`M_{5D}/k=1/2`$ ($`M_{5D}/k=1/2`$) corresponds to the conformal limit, and in this case the zero mode is flat. On the other hand, KK modes of gauge bosons are always located near the TeV brane and therefore they will couple more strongly to light fermions <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2In particular, at the conformal limit KK gauge bosons do not couple to the fermion zero mode, because the five-momentum is conserved in this limit.. We thus assume that the left-handed third generation quarks $`\mathrm{\Psi }^3`$ have $`M_{5D}/k_{}^<1/2`$ and the right-handed top quark $`U^3`$ has $`M_{5D}/k_{}^>1/2`$, and due to the strong coupling to gauge boson KK modes they form bound states. On the contrary, if the remaining SM left-handed (right-handed) fermions have 5D mass terms $`M_{5D}/k_{}^>1/2`$ ($`M_{5D}/k_{}^<1/2`$), their zero modes live near the Planck brane, where the coupling to gauge boson KK modes is too weak to produce composite states.

Under these assumptions, we expect that the SM gauge interactions in the bulk will induce only condensates of third generation quarks $`\mathrm{\Psi }^3`$ and $`U^3`$. Using the most attractive channel analysis  one finds that the channel $`H=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^3U^3`$ is the most attractive one among those which transform non-trivially under the SM group, but there would be gauge-singlet scalars more tightly bound than $`H`$, namely $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^3\mathrm{\Psi }^3`$ and $`\overline{U}^3U^3`$. As a consequence, these singlets would acquire vevs which do not break any gauge symmetry and provide a positive contribution to the squared-mass of the $`SU(2)_W`$ doublet $`H`$. In this case, it is not clear whether the scalar effective potential is minimized by a nonzero vev of $`H`$; moreover, simple estimates are not reliable due to the non-perturbative nature of the quark condensation. To avoid this problem we could incorporate more $`Z_2`$ symmetries during the orbifold projection, preventing the existence of singlet zero modes in the KK decomposition . Thus the lightest modes of the singlets would have squared masses less negative, allowing electroweak symmetry breaking.

If the composite Higgs $`H`$ acquires a vev, it will provide electroweak scale masses for the gauge bosons and the top quark. It is important to note that since the composite Higgs has a 5D mass of order TeV, it is also localized near the TeV boundary. In order to explain the SM fermionic spectrum we have to assume the presence of four-fermion operators of the type (48). However now the 5D Yukawa couplings can be all of order $`\lambda _{ij}^{(5)}k1`$, because the hierarchy of masses is originated by the exponentially small overlap of the fermions localized near the Planck brane with the composite Higgs field, much as in the model of ref. with a fundamental SM Higgs localized on the TeV brane. There, it is shown that the spectrum of the SM fermionic sector can be naturally generated just assuming small splittings in the bulk fermion masses, all in the range $`|M_{5D}|/k1`$. We refer the reader to  for details. This idea of using the warp factor to explain fermion mass hierarchies has also been consider in  in the context of neutrino masses.

Finally, we should point out that in this scenario FCNC dangerous operators are safely suppressed, but proton decay is still a problem .

## 7 Conclusions

We have studied dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking in the Randall-Sundrum scenario and we have shown that it is possible to break the electroweak symmetry using the ideas of top condensate mode in the context of one warped extra dimension, with no fundamental fields beyond the SM gauge bosons and fermions living in the 5D bulk.

In warped compactifications, the coupling of gauge boson KK excitations to fermions depends on the position of the fermion field in the bulk. In particular, there is a sizeable enhancement of their couplings to fermions localized near the TeV brane, as compared with the gauge boson zero mode coupling. Such a strong interaction produces quark pair condensates, some of which can acquire vevs and break dynamically the electroweak symmetry. Contrary to what happens in flat extra dimensions , we do not have to rely on the degeneracy of KK modes in $`D6`$ dimensions to trigger dynamical symmetry breaking.

We have considered a minimal model, where only gauge bosons and the right-handed top quark propagate in the 5D bulk, while all the other SM fermions are confined on the TeV brane. The Higgs boson emerges as a bound state of the left-handed third generation quarks and the right-handed top. The simplicity of the model allows to perform reliable calculations within the four-fermion operator approximation. We have computed, at leading order in the $`N_c`$ expansion, the parameters of the composite scalar effective theory and the top quark mass. The reason why at least the right-handed top quark must live in the bulk is twofold. First, its KK excitations active at the compositeness scale give a large and negative contribution to the squared-mass of the $`SU(2)_W`$ doublet composite Higgs, which then acquires a vev and breaks the electroweak symmetry. Second, the number of its active KK excitations suppresses the top quark Yukawa coupling, leading to a top mass within the experimental range. Although our calculation only includes the leading $`N_c`$ contribution, it shows that dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking is feasible in the Randall-Sundrum model, and we do not expect that next-to-leading order corrections will invalidate this conclusion.

We have also considered a more natural scenario, in which all SM fermions as well as the gauge bosons propagate in the bulk. In this case, a local four-fermion approximation of the strong interactions mediated by KK gauge boson modes is not justified, and we can only describe qualitatively the expected features of the model. Interestingly enough, just assuming that the light fermions are localized near the Planck brane and the heavy ones near the TeV boundary, we argue that only composite states bound out of third generation quarks are produced and we can explain the fermion mass hierarchies. The question of whether the composite Higgs doublet does acquire a nonzero vev requires further investigation.

## Acknowledgments

V.S. would like to thank Bogdan Dobrescu for interesting suggestions and comments, and Lisa Randall for enlightening discussions. We also thank Pilar Hernández and Arcadi Santamaría for comments on the manuscript. V.S. would like to thank the Center for Theoretical Physics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for its hospitality while this work was initiated. This work was supported in part by the spanish DGESIC grants PB97-1261 and PB98-0693, by the Generalitat Valenciana under grant GV99-3-1-01 and by the TMR network contract HPRN-CT-2000-00148 of the European Union.


text:
# Coulomb Blockade and Coherent Single-Cooper-Pair Tunneling in Single Josephson Junctions

## Abstract

We have measured the current-voltage characteristics of small-capacitance single Josephson junctions at low temperatures ($`T0.04`$ K), where the strength of the coupling between the single junction and the electromagnetic environment was controlled with one-dimensional arrays of dc SQUIDs. We have clearly observed Coulomb blockade of Cooper-pair tunneling and even a region of negative differential resistance, when the zero-bias resistance of the SQUID arrays is much higher than the quantum resistance $`h/e^226`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The negative differential resistance is evidence of coherent single-Cooper-pair tunneling in the single Josephson junction.

PACS numbers: 73.23.Hk, 73.40.Gk, 74.50.+r

Small-capacitance superconducting tunnel junctions provide a novel system for studying the interplay between the Josephson phase and the charge on the junction electrode. These are quantum mechanically conjugate variables, and their behavior is influenced by dissipation, such as discrete tunneling of quasi-particles, coupling to an electromagnetic environment, etc. The simplest and the most fundamental example is the single junction. Current-voltage ($`I`$-$`V`$) characteristics of single junctions have been the subject of extensive theoretical investigations . Experimentally, however, the observation of charging effects such as “Coulomb blockade” has been considered to be extremely difficult in single junctions because a high-impedance environment is necessary, and special care should be taken with the measurement leads . For this reason, thin-film resistors  and tunnel-junction arrays  were employed for the leads, and an increase of differential resistance around $`V=0`$ was reported.

We use one-dimensional arrays of dc superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) for the leads. The advantage of this SQUID configuration is that the effective impedance of array can be varied in situ by applying an external magnetic field perpendicular to the substrate. Thus, the zero-bias resistance of the SQUID arrays at low temperatures can be varied over several orders of magnitude. This phenomenon has been extensively studied in terms of the superconductor-insulator transition . The single junction in our samples, on the other hand, does not have a SQUID configuration, and therefore its parameters are practically independent of the external magnetic field. This enables us to study the same single junction in different environments. This type of experiment has not yet been reported to the best of our knowledge. We show that the $`I`$-$`V`$ curve of the single junction is indeed sensitive to the state of the environment. Furthermore, we can induce a transition to a Coulomb blockade of the single junction when the zero-bias resistance of the SQUID arrays is much higher than the quantum resistance $`R_Kh/e^226`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

In addition to Coulomb blockade, we have clearly observed a region of negative differential resistance in the $`I`$-$`V`$ curve. Negative differential resistance has been reported in one-dimensional arrays  and in two-dimensional arrays , however, clear observation in single junctions has not yet been reported in the literature.

In the context of the theory of current-biased single Josephson junctions , the negative differential resistance appears as a result of coherent tunneling of single Cooper pairs. The onset of the coherent tunneling is characterized by the local voltage maximum in the low-current part of the $`I`$-$`V`$ curve, or blockade voltage $`V_b`$. The value of $`V_b`$ is suppressed as the ratio $`E_J/E_C`$ is increased. Here, $`E_J`$ is the Josephson energy and $`E_Ce^2/2C`$, where $`C`$ is the capacitance of the single junction. We show that the $`E_J/E_C`$ dependence of our measured $`V_b`$ is consistent with the theoretical prediction.

A scanning electron micrograph of an Al/Al2O3/Al sample is shown in Fig. 1. A single junction with the area of 0.1$`\times `$0.1 $`\mu `$m2 is in the center of Fig. 1. On each side of the single junction there are two leads enabling four-point measurements of the single junction. A part of each lead close to the single junction consists of an array of dc SQUIDs. The area of each junction in the leads is 0.3$`\times `$0.1 $`\mu `$m2 and the effective area of the SQUID loop is 0.7$`\times `$0.2 $`\mu `$m2. All of the samples have the same configuration, except for the number $`N`$ of junction pairs in each lead. In Fig. 1, $`N=17`$ is shown, however, we measured the samples with larger $`N`$, up to 225. The tunnel junctions are fabricated on a SiO2 substrate using electron-beam lithography and a double-angle-evaporation technique . The oxidation conditions, or the thickness of the Al2O3 layer, determines the tunnel resistance of the junctions. The samples are characterized by the normal-state resistance $`R_n`$ of the single junction, the normal-state resistance $`r_n`$ per junction pair of the SQUID arrays, and $`N`$.

The samples were measured in a 3He-4He dilution refrigerator mainly at the base temperature ($`0.020.04`$ K). The temperature was determined by measuring the resistance of a ruthenium-oxide thermometer fixed at the mixing chamber. To measure the resistance of the thermometer, we used an ac resistance bridge (RV-Elekroniikka, AVS-47). The samples were placed inside a copper RF-tight box which was thermally connected to the mixing chamber. All the leads entering the RF-tight box were low-pass filtered by 1 m of Thermocoax cable . We measured the $`I`$-$`V`$ curve of the single junction in a four-point configuration, where the potential difference was measured through one pair of SQUID-array leads with a high-input-impedance instrumentation amplifier based on two operational amplifiers (Burr-Brown OPA111BM) and a preamplifier \[Stanford Research Systems (SRS) SR560\]. Through the other pair of SQUID-array leads, the bias was applied, and the current was measured with a current preamplifier (SRS SR570). When the voltage drop at the SQUID arrays was much larger than that at the single junction, the single junction was practically current biased. The SQUID arrays could be measured in a two-point configuration (same current and voltage leads) on the same side of the single junction. Note that the two arrays are connected in series and that current does not flow through the single junction. In order to obtain $`R_n`$ and $`r_n`$, we measured at $`T=24`$ K (above the superconducting transition temperature of Al).

The effective Josephson energy between adjacent islands in the SQUID arrays is proportional to $`|\mathrm{cos}(\pi BA/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)|`$, where $`B`$ is the external magnetic field applied perpendicular to the substrate, $`A`$ is the effective area of the SQUID loop, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=h/2e=2\times 10^{15}`$ Wb is the superconducting flux quantum. Figure 2 shows the zero-bias resistance $`r_0`$ as a function of $`B`$, of two SQUID arrays on the same side of the single junction. The arrays have $`r_n=1.1`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`N=225`$. In our samples with $`A=0.14`$ $`\mu `$m2, $`BA/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ becomes $`1/2`$ at $`B=7.4`$ mT. Thus, $`r_0`$ should have the first local maximum at 7.4 mT, as observed in Fig. 2. The value of $`r_0`$ at the local maximum is more than 107 times larger than that at $`B=0`$. This means that we can tune the electromagnetic environment for the single junction over a wide range. Henceforth we indicate the magnetic field as the frustration $`fBA/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$.

In Figs. 35, we show some results on a sample with $`R_n=17`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`r_n=1.4`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`N=65`$. The $`I`$-$`V`$ curves for the single junction at several frustrations are shown in Fig. 3. The vertical broken lines represent the superconducting energy gap $`\pm 2\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is $`\pm 0.34`$ meV for Al . The features within the gap are dependent on $`f`$ especially in the vicinity of $`V=0`$. A close-up of the region denoted by the boxes with dotted lines is shown in Fig. 4. As $`f`$ is varied, the single-junction $`I`$-$`V`$ curve shown in Fig. 4 develops a Coulomb blockade. We reemphasize that the Josephson energy of the single junction is independent of $`f`$, because it does not have a SQUID configuration and the field $`f\mathrm{\Phi }_0/A`$ applied here is much smaller than the critical field for Al films ($`0.1`$ T). The electromagnetic environment for the single junction (the SQUID array), however, is strongly varied with $`f`$. Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate that the low-bias region of the single-junction $`I`$-$`V`$ curve is indeed sensitive to the environment.

The $`I`$-$`V`$ curves of the two SQUID-array leads connected in series at $`f=0.43`$ ($`r_0=0.61`$ M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$), 0.46 ($`r_0=3.2`$ M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$), and 0.49 ($`r_0=43`$ M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) are shown in Fig. 5. The $`I`$-$`V`$ curves of the leads are nonlinear, and in general the SQUID array cannot be described by a liner impedance model . However, we may characterize the environment by their $`r_0`$. Coulomb blockade is visible only when $`r_0R_K`$, which is consistent with the theoretical conditions for the clear observation of Coulomb blockade in single junctions . For an arbitrary linear environment characterized by $`Z_e(\omega )`$, $`\text{Re}[Z_e(\omega )]R_K`$ is required for the Coulomb blockade of single-electron tunneling and $`\text{Re}[Z_e(\omega )]R_K/4`$ for that of Cooper-pair tunneling . However, as seen in Fig. 5, our SQUID arrays are a nonlinear environment. It is interesting to note that at $`f=0.46`$ (labeled “b”), the $`I`$-$`V`$ curve of the leads is still “Josephson-like” (differential resistance is lower around $`V=0`$), while that of the single junction is already “Coulomb-blockade-like”. This feature becomes more distinct in samples with larger $`N`$.

The region of negative differential resistance seen in Fig. 4 when Coulomb blockade is well developed, is related to coherent tunneling of single Cooper pairs according to the theory  of a current-biased single Josephson junction in an environment with sufficiently high impedance. For sufficiently low current, the electrical conduction of single Josephson junctions is governed by stochastic quasi-particle tunneling, and the $`I`$-$`V`$ characteristic is highly resistive. As the current is increased, coherent single-Cooper-pair tunneling, or “Bloch oscillation” dominates, decreasing the mean voltage. As a result, the $`I`$-$`V`$ curve has a region of negative differential resistance, or “back-bending” in the low-current part.

Theoretically, the value of the local voltage maximum, or blockade voltage $`V_b`$, is a function of the ratio $`E_J/E_C`$, and given by

$$V_b\{\begin{array}{cc}0.25e/C\hfill & \text{for }E_J/E_C1\text{,}\hfill \\ \delta _0/e\hfill & \text{for }E_J/E_C1\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
as $`T0`$, where

$$\delta _0=\frac{e^2}{C}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{E_J}{E_C}\right)^{3/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(8\frac{E_J}{E_C}\right)^{1/2}\right]$$
(2)
is the half width of the lowest energy band . When quasi-particle tunneling is neglected, $`V_b`$ becomes larger ,

$$V_b\{\begin{array}{cc}e/C\hfill & \text{for }E_J/E_C1\text{,}\hfill \\ \pi \delta _0/e\hfill & \text{for }E_J/E_C1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
The calculation of $`V_b`$ for arbitrary $`E_J/E_C`$ has also been done for the case of no quasi-particle tunneling .

In Fig. 6, we compare the measured $`V_b`$ with the above predictions. We used $`E_J=h\mathrm{\Delta }/8e^2R_n`$, and for $`E_C`$ we estimated $`C`$ from the junction area. A value of specific capacitance $`c_s=45\pm 5`$ fF/$`\mu `$m2 , which was obtained for the junctions with $`3\times 28`$ $`\mu `$m2 and $`7\times 54`$ $`\mu `$m2, has been frequently employed . Uncertainty in $`c_s`$, however, seems to be much larger when the junction area is on the order of 0.01 $`\mu `$m2 or smaller.

In the following experimental literature on small tunnel junctions, $`C`$ was estimated from the offset voltage in the normal-state $`I`$-$`V`$ curve. Fulton and Dolan measured samples with three junctions that share a common electrode, and obtained $`0.200.23`$ fF for ($`0.03\pm 0.01`$ $`\mu `$m)$`{}_{}{}^{2}\times 3`$ , i.e., $`c_s=42192`$ fF/$`\mu `$m2. Geerligs et al. reported $`c_s110`$ fF/$`\mu `$m2 for two-dimensional ($`190\times 60`$) junction arrays with the areas of 0.01 or 0.04 $`\mu `$m2 . More recently, Penttilä et al. studied resistively shunted single Josephson junctions with the area of $`0.15\times 0.15`$ $`\mu `$m2 . The estimated $`C`$ of their eight samples ranged between 0.8 and 6.6 fF, or $`c_s=36293`$ fF/$`\mu `$m2.

Motivated by the above survey, in Fig. 6 we plot the experimental $`V_b`$ vs $`E_J/E_C`$, where two different values of $`c_s`$ have been used to determine $`C`$. The lower data set uses 45 fF/$`\mu `$m2 and the upper data set 200 fF/$`\mu `$m2. The data from Ref.  for the samples with the same nominal junction area ($`0.1\times 0.1`$ $`\mu `$m2) as in this work are also plotted. The measured $`V_b`$ agrees with the theoretical predictions qualitatively. We also find a quantitative agreement when $`c_s200`$ fF/$`\mu `$m2 is taken for 0.01 $`\mu `$m2. This apparently large junction capacitance may be partly explained by distributed capacitance of the SQUID arrays.

In summary, we have studied the current-voltage characteristics of single Josephson junctions biased with SQUID arrays. We have demonstrated that the Coulomb blockade in the single junction is indeed sensitive to the state of the environment. The region of negative differential resistance has been clearly observed in the $`I`$-$`V`$ curve of the single junction, when the zero-bias resistance of the SQUID arrays is much higher than $`R_K`$, which is clear evidence of coherent single-Cooper-pair tunneling in the single Josephson junction.

We are grateful to T. Kato and R. L. Kautz for fruitful discussions. This work was supported by Swedish NFR. M. W. would like to thank Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and the Swedish Institute (SI) for financial supports.