text:
# 1 Quarks and leptons confined to 4𝐷

## 1 Quarks and leptons confined to $`4D`$

Suppose the quarks and leptons are localized on a “$`3`$-brane”, i.e., do not propagate in the extra dimensions (the “bulk”) in which the gauge bosons and Higgs fields propagate. Then translation invariance in the extra dimensions is broken by couplings of fields on the brane to fields in the bulk – in this case, the couplings of quarks and leptons to gauge bosons. In momentum space, conservation of extra dimensional momentum is violated. Thus, in the effective $`4D`$ theory vertices with only one KK state, for example, tree-level couplings of KK gauge bosons to leptons and quarks, are allowed. These couplings result in a contribution to muon decay, atomic parity violation (APV) etc. at tree-level from Feynman diagrams with exchange of KK $`W`$’s and $`Z`$’s instead of (zero-mode) $`W`$ and $`Z`$ as in the SM . Thus, these contributions are $`_nM_W^2/\left(n/R\right)^2`$ compared to the SM.

Then, precision electroweak measurements ($`G_F`$ etc.) imply an upper limit on $`_nM_W^2/\left(n/R\right)^2`$ of about a few percent. and, in turn, $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$ (see Eq. (1)) .

## 2 Universal extra dimensions

Suppose quarks and leptons are also in the (same) bulk – the extra dimensions are “universal”. Then, extra dimensional momentum is conserved, i.e., in the effective $`4D`$ theory, “KK number” is conserved. Thus, there are no vertices with only one KK state; in particular, couplings of (zero-modes of) quarks and leptons to KK gauge bosons are not allowed. This implies that there are no tree-level effects on muon decay, APV, $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ etc. .

However, there are constraints on $`R^1`$ from one loop contribution to $`T`$ from KK excitations of top quark, $`W`$ and Higgs :

$`T`$ $``$ $`0.83{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}m_t^2/(n/R)^2[10.75m_t^2/(n/R)^2+..](0.25+0.034\delta ){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}M_W^2/(n/R)^2`$ (2)
$`0.043{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}M_H^2/\left(n/R\right)^2\left[1+O\left(M_H^2/\left(n/R\right)^2\right)\right]`$
Here, $`\delta `$ is the number of extra dimensions and $`M_H`$ is the Higgs mass. We have assumed one Higgs doublet as in the minimal SM. The contribution of KK states of top quark is positive and dominates over that of KK states of $`W`$ and Higgs which is negative. Thus, we get a constraint from the $`2\sigma `$ upper limit $`T\stackrel{<}{}0.4`$ (for $`M_H\stackrel{<}{}250`$ GeV). 666The SM contribution to the vacuum polarization diagrams for $`W`$ and $`Z`$ and hence the $`2\sigma `$ limit on $`T`$ depends weakly (logarithmically) on $`M_H`$. In the above equation, the contribution of KK states of $`W`$ and Higgs at each level (i.e., for each value of $`n`$) depends on $`\delta `$ and $`M_H`$. In addition, the sum over KK states $`_n1/n^2`$ depends on $`\delta `$ – in fact, $`_n1/n^2`$ diverges for $`\delta 2`$ and so has to be regulated by a cut-off. Thus, the constraint on $`R^1`$ depends on $`\delta `$ and $`M_H`$. In any case, using $`m_t/M_W2.1`$ and assuming $`\delta 6`$ and $`M_H250`$ GeV, we get the constraint $`\left(M_WR\right)^2_n1/n^2\stackrel{<}{}0.1`$ (if we neglect $`O\left(R/n\right)^4`$ terms). The constraint is a little bit weaker if we allow larger $`\delta `$ and $`M_H`$. Nevertheless, this implies that $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$.

## 3 Quarks and gluon in a subspace of the bulk

To relax the constraint from the $`T`$ parameter, we need to reduce the (positive) contribution of KK states of top quark to $`T`$ compared to the (negative) contribution from KK states of $`W`$ and Higgs. This can be done by allowing the top quark to propagate in fewer extra dimensions than the electroweak particles. One possibility is to have only third generation quarks stuck on a $`3`$-brane. Then, in the weak basis, only third generation quarks couple to KK gluons. Thus, when we perform a unitary rotation on the quarks to go to mass basis, there is flavor violation at this KK gluon vertex . This results in contribution to, for example, $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing from tree-level exchange of KK gluons. If we assume CKM-like mixing among down-type quarks, then the coefficient of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ operator is given by $`\left(V_{tb}^{}V_{td}\right)^2g_{QCD}^21/\left(n/R\right)^2`$. Then, the constraint that this coefficient should be smaller than that in the SM which is $`\left(V_{tb}^{}V_{td}\right)^2g_2^4/\left(16\pi ^2\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/m_t^2(\text{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/M_W^2)`$ implies that $`\left(M_WR\right)^2_n1/n^2\stackrel{<}{}1/g_{QCD}^2g_2^4/\left(16\pi ^2\right)1`$. In turn, this shows that $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$.

Also, if there are some extra dimensions in which gluons propagate but the first generation quarks do not, then there is a tree-level contribution to $`p\overline{p}`$ jets from exchange of KK excitations of gluons. This results in the constraint $`R^1\stackrel{>}{}1`$ TeV from CDF : such a large $`R^1`$ will result in $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$.

If Higgs fields are on a $`3`$-brane (or in general, propagate in a sub-space of the bulk in which electroweak gauge bosons propagate), then there is a mass-mixing term between zero-mode $`W`$, $`Z`$ and their KK excitations. This mixing is due to the coupling $`H^{}HW_\mu ^{(0)}W^{\mu (n)}`$, where $`W_\mu ^{(n)}`$ denotes a KK state of $`W`$ with mass $`n/R`$ and $`H`$ is the SM Higgs field . Due to this mixing, the physical $`W`$ and $`Z`$ masses are shifted from the values given by the (tree-level) expression in the SM, i.e., from $`M_W^{SM}=gv/2`$ and $`M_Z^{SM}=\sqrt{g^2+g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}v/2`$, where $`v246`$ GeV and $`g`$, $`g^{}`$ are the $`SU(2)`$ and $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge couplings. The relative shift in the masses is given by $`_nM_W^{SM\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}(\text{or}M_Z^{SM\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}})/\left(n/R\right)^2`$, whereas the tree-level expression for muon decay (in terms of $`v`$) is the same as in the SM since only zero-mode of $`W`$ contributes in this model . As a result precision data on $`W`$, $`Z`$ masses give an upper limit on $`_nM_W^2/\left(n/R\right)^2`$ of about a few percent. From Eq. (1), we see that this constraint results in $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$. So, to get $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$, we have to assume that Higgs fields propagate in the same extra dimensions as the electroweak gauge bosons.

In order to evade all these constraints on $`R^1`$, we assume that all quarks and gluons propagate in the same extra dimensional space, namely, $`\delta _c`$ extra dimensions. Whereas, all leptons, electroweak gauge bosons and Higgs doublet propagate in $`\delta \delta _c`$ additional extra dimensions. As mentioned before, to evade the constraint from tree-level effects of KK states on electroweak observables involving leptons, the leptons and electroweak gauge bosons have to propagate in the same bulk. For simplicity, assume that all extra dimensions are compactified on circles of the same radius $`R`$.

A possible motivation for such a set-up is to explain $`g_{EW}^2g_{QCD}^2`$ at the cut-off (and hence at the scale $`M_Z`$) as we discuss below. The gauge coupling of the effective $`4D`$ theory and the dimensionless gauge coupling of the fundamental $`(4+\delta )D`$ theory, $`g_{(4+\delta )D}`$, are related at the cut-off $`M`$ by $`g_{4D}^2g_{(4+\delta )D}^2/(MR)^\delta `$ and thus if $`\delta _c<\delta `$, then $`g_{4DEW}^2`$ is reduced (more) by extra dimensional volume than $`g_{4DQCD}^2`$. Therefore, $`g_{4DEW}^2g_{4DQCD}^2`$ at the cut-off even though the fundamental (dimensionless) gauge coupling, $`g_{(4+\delta )D}`$, might be same for QCD and electroweak gauge groups. Between the cut-off and the energy scale $`R^1`$, $`g_{4DQCD}^2`$ and $`g_{4DEW}^2`$ evolve with a power-law due to the contribution of the KK states : if $`\delta _c<\delta `$, then this power-law evolution is more important for $`g_{4DEW}^2`$ than for $`g_{QCD}^2`$ since there are fewer KK states with color. This evolution leads to an additional difference between $`g_{4DQCD}^2`$ and $`g_{4DEW}^2`$ at the scale $`M_Z`$. This is to be contrasted to the “standard” picture with the gluon and electroweak gauge bosons propagating in the same bulk. In this picture, due to power-law evolution (which is equally important for both gauge couplings), it is possible that the two effective $`4D`$ couplings, i.e., $`g_{4DQCD}^2`$ and $`g_{4DEW}^2`$, unify at the cut-off $`M`$ (even though $`M`$ might not be much larger than $`R^1`$) . Whereas, with $`\delta _c<\delta `$, as discussed above, the fundamental dimensionless QCD and electroweak gauge couplings can “unify” at the cut-off, even though the effective $`4D`$ gauge couplings do not.

There are two cases within this type of model which we now discuss.

### 3.1 Case $`\delta _c=0`$: quarks and gluon on a brane

In this case, there are no KK excitations of the top quark and hence Eq. (2) gives $`T(0.350.8)\left(M_WR\right)^2_n1/n^2\stackrel{>}{}(0.20.3)`$ which is the $`2\sigma `$ lower limit on $`T`$: this also depends weakly on $`M_H`$. The range $`0.350.8`$ corresponds to varying $`\delta `$ and $`M_H`$ (assuming $`\delta 6`$ and $`M_H\stackrel{<}{}250`$ GeV). This implies that $`\left(M_WR\right)^2_n1/n^2\stackrel{<}{}1`$ so that $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$ is barely allowed by the constraint from $`T`$ (see Eq. (1)).

However, there is a stronger constraint from inclusive hadronic decays of $`B`$. The reason is that KK states of $`W`$ contribute at tree-level to hadronic weak decays, but not to semileptonic weak decays since (zero-mode) leptons do not couple to KK states of gauge bosons. Again, this additional contribution to the amplitude is $`\left(M_WR\right)^2_n1/n^2`$ compared to the SM. The SM prediction for the ratio of the rates of hadronic and semileptonic inclusive $`B`$ decays, to be specific $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(bc\overline{u}d\right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(bcl\nu \right)`$, agrees with experiment to within $`20\%`$ at $`1\sigma `$ (combining theory and experiment errors) . Thus, we get $`\left(M_WR\right)^2_n1/n^2`$ (the ratio of KK to SM $`W`$ amplitude) is at most about $`10\%`$ so that $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$

### 3.2 Case $`\delta _c0`$

In this case, the constraints from both $`T`$ and hadronic $`B`$ decays can be relaxed as we discuss below.

Using $`m_t2.1M_W`$ in Eq. (2), we get

$`T`$ $``$ $`\left(M_WR\right)^2\left[3.9{\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{\delta _c}{}}}1/n^2(0.350.8){\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{\delta }{}}}1/n^2\right],`$ (3)
where (and from now on) $`_n^\delta ^{}1/n^2`$ denotes sum over KK states of a particle with momentum in only $`\delta ^{}`$ of the $`\delta `$ extra dimensions. As discussed before, the coefficient $`(0.350.8)`$ of the $`W`$ and Higgs contribution to $`T`$ at each KK level depends on $`\delta `$ and $`M_H`$ – we have allowed $`\delta 6`$ and $`M_H250`$ GeV. It is clear that there can be a cancelation between the contributions of top quark and $`W+`$Higgs, i.e., $`T0`$ 777Strictly speaking $`0.3\stackrel{<}{}T\stackrel{<}{}0.4`$ is allowed at $`2\sigma `$ (again depending weakly on $`M_H`$), but for simplicity, we assume $`T0`$. if the following condition is satisfied:

$$\frac{_n^\delta 1/n^2}{_n^{\delta _c}1/n^2}(510),$$
(4)
where the RHS depends on $`\delta `$ and $`M_H`$. In other words, this case is intermediate between the case in section 2, where the contribution from top quark is dominant and the case in section 3.1, where there is only the $`W`$ and Higgs contribution.

Also, in this case, the additional contribution to hadronic $`B`$ decays (relative to SM) is given by

$$r_B\frac{W_{KK}\text{amplitude}}{W\text{amplitude in SM}}\left(M_WR\right)^2\underset{n}{\overset{\left(\delta \delta _c\right)}{}}1/n^2$$
(5)
since only KK excitations of $`W`$ with momentum in the $`\left(\delta \delta _c\right)`$ extra dimensions in which quarks do not propagate contribute. From Eq. (1), to get $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$, we require

$$\left(M_WR\right)^2\underset{n}{\overset{\delta }{}}1/n^21.$$
(6)
Thus, even if Eq. (6) is satisfied, the contribution to hadronic $`B`$ decays can be smaller than $`10\%`$ in the amplitude (as required by the agreement between theory and experiment) provided the following condition is satisfied

$$\underset{n}{\overset{\left(\delta \delta _c\right)}{}}1/n^2\stackrel{<}{}1/10\underset{n}{\overset{\delta }{}}1/n^2.$$
(7)
Therefore, for given $`\delta `$, it might be possible to evade the constraints from $`T`$ and hadronic decays (while getting $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$) by an appropriate choice of $`\delta _c`$ and $`M_H`$ such that Eqs. (4) and (7) are satisfied.

Next, we discuss the values of the parameters $`\delta `$, $`\delta _c`$, $`R^1`$ and the cut-off $`M`$ for which this is possible.

We begin with direct bounds on $`R^1`$ from collider searches. In this case, there are KK excitations of quarks which appear as heavy stable quarks at hadron colliders and searches at CDF imply $`R^1\stackrel{>}{}300`$ GeV (for $`\delta _c=1`$) . The direct lower bound on $`R^1`$ will be (slightly) larger for $`\delta _c>1`$ since there will be more KK modes at the lowest level, i.e., with $`n=1`$.

The KK states of electroweak gauge bosons with momentum in the $`\left(\delta \delta _c\right)`$ extra dimensions (in which quarks do not propagate) couple to zero-mode quarks (with the same strength as in SM), but not to zero-mode leptons. Thus, at hadron colliders, the signatures of these KK states will be similar to that of $`W^{}`$ and $`Z^{}`$ decaying to dijets. The CDF search excludes hadronic decays of $`W^{}`$ in the mass range $`300<M_W^{}<420`$ GeV at $`95\%`$ confidence level . For the KK states of $`W`$, the branching ratio to quarks is slightly larger than that for $`W^{}`$ since the leptonic decays are absent. Also, since there are $`2\left(\delta \delta _c\right)`$ relevant states at the lowest KK level (i.e., with $`n=1`$), the production cross-section can be larger than that for $`W^{}`$ of same mass. We will assume the limit $`R^1\stackrel{>}{}400`$ GeV from a combination of the heavy stable quark and $`W^{}`$ searches.

In turn, this implies that $`_n^\delta 1/n^2\stackrel{>}{}25`$ to give $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$ (see Eq. (6)). Thus, $`\delta =1,2`$ will not suffice since $`_n^\delta 1/n^2=\pi ^2/3`$ for $`\delta =1`$ and is log-divergent (but, $`O(1)`$) for $`\delta =2`$. The sum over KK states of a SM particle $`_n^\delta 1/n^2`$ is power-divergent if $`\delta 3`$. It can be approximated by an integral (provided $`MR^1`$): $`_n^\delta 1/n^2S_\delta /(\delta 2)\left(MR\right)^{\delta 2}`$, where the KK sum is cut-off at the mass scale $`M`$ (i.e., $`n_{\text{max}}/RM`$) and $`S_\delta =2\pi ^{\delta /2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }[\delta /2]`$ (the surface area of a unit-radius sphere in $`\delta `$ dimensions). Thus, for $`\delta 3`$, we get

$$\frac{a_\mu ^{KK}}{a_\mu ^{EW}}x\left(M_WR\right)^2S_\delta /(\delta 2)\left(MR\right)^{\left(\delta 2\right)},$$
(8)
where $`x`$ is a factor of $`O(1)`$ which includes two effects as follows. One effect is from the loop integral. The reason is that in the case of SM electroweak correction there is only one heavy particle in the loop ($`W`$) whereas in the case of the KK contribution both the particles in the loop ($`W_{KK}`$ and $`\nu _{KK}`$) are heavy. Hence the ratio of the contribution from a KK state of mass $`n/R`$ to the SM electroweak contribution is not simply the ratio of heaviest masses in the loop, i.e., it is $`\left(M_W/\left(n/R\right)\right)^2`$ only up to a factor of $`O(1)`$. In principle, $`x`$ can be computed in the effective $`4D`$ theory. However, we see from Eq. (8) that this factor can be absorbed into the definition of the cut-off $`M`$. The other effect included in the factor $`x`$ is that $`a_\mu ^{EW}`$ includes the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ loop contributions in the SM, whereas $`a_\mu ^{KK}`$ includes loop contributions from KK states of $`W`$, $`Z`$ and the photon.

There is an upper limit on $`(MR)^\delta `$ from the condition that the effective $`4D`$ theory at the cut-off $`M`$ remain perturbative. The loop expansion parameter at the cut-off $`M`$ is given by $`N_{KK}N_ig_2^2/\left(16\pi ^2\right)`$. Here $`N_i`$ is the number of “colors” and $`N_{KK}S_\delta /\delta \left(MR\right)^\delta `$ is the number of KK states lighter than $`M`$, i.e, the total number of KK states in the effective $`4D`$ theory. We cannot trust perturbative calculations if this factor is larger than $`1`$. Therefore, we impose the constraint

$$N_{KK}S_\delta /\delta \left(MR\right)^\delta \stackrel{<}{}16\pi ^2$$
(9)
(QCD effective coupling is smaller since number of KK states of gluons and quarks is smaller). Thus, the upper limit on $`M`$ is not much larger than $`R^1`$. Nonetheless, we have checked if $`N_{KK}1`$ (i.e., $`M`$ is close to the upper limit of Eq. (9)), then the sum over KK states can still be approximated by an integral.

We can rewrite Eq. (8) in terms of $`N_{KK}`$ (using $`N_{KK}S_\delta /\delta \left(MR\right)^\delta `$) as follows:

$$\frac{a_\mu ^{KK}}{a_\mu ^{EW}}x\left(M_WR\right)^2S_\delta /(\delta 2)\left(\delta /S_\delta N_{KK}\right)^{(\delta 2)/\delta }$$
(10)
In Fig. 1, we plot $`a_\mu ^{KK}/a_\mu ^{EW}`$ as a function of $`N_{KK}`$ for different values of $`\delta `$ and for $`R^1=400`$ GeV. From Eq. (9), the upper limit on $`N_{KK}`$ is about $`16\pi ^2160`$. We have chosen $`x=1`$ for this plot; as mentioned before, if $`x1`$, then it can be absorbed into the definition of the cut-off, or in other words, in the value of $`N_{KK}`$ (see Eq. (10)). Also, in this figure, we have not imposed the constraint from BR$`\left(BX_s\gamma \right)`$ (see the discussion later). We see from this figure that it is possible to have $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$ for $`\delta 3`$ as long as $`N_{KK}\stackrel{>}{}40`$.

We now discuss the values of $`\delta _c`$ for which the constraints from $`T`$ and hadronic $`B`$ decays can be satisfied.

Since $`_n^\delta 1/n^2=\pi ^2/3`$ for $`\delta =1`$, it is clear from Eq. (5) that if $`\left(\delta \delta _c\right)=1`$, then $`r_B13\%`$ provided $`R^1400`$ GeV. Thus, it is possible to (barely) satisfy the constraint from hadronic $`B`$ decays by choosing $`\delta _c=\delta 1`$.

For given values of $`\delta `$ and $`\delta _c`$, in general, it should be possible to choose the value of $`M_H`$ such that $`T0`$ (see Eq. (3) or Eq. (4)). 888A caveat is that as mentioned earlier, if $`x1`$, then the results in Fig. 1 really correspond to a “redefined” value of $`N_{KK}`$ (or in other words, the cut-off $`M`$). Then, the cut-off appearing in the sum over KK states in Eq. (3) is, strictly speaking, different than that in Fig. 1. Thus, for a given value of $`N_{KK}`$ in Fig. 1 the value of $`M_H`$ which gives $`T0`$ is modified. However, the two values of cut-off and hence the two values of $`M_H`$ differ by a factor of at most $`O(1)`$. Note that a small non-zero value of $`T`$ is allowed (at $`2\sigma `$ level, $`0.3\stackrel{<}{}T\stackrel{<}{}0.4`$ as mentioned before) and similarly the constraint from hadronic $`B`$ decays is also not very precise. Thus, for given values of other parameters, there can be a range of values of $`\delta _c`$ and $`M_H`$ which is consistent with $`T`$ and with hadronic $`B`$ decays.

Next, we discuss the constraints from measurements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(bs\gamma \right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(bcl\nu \right)`$. The semileptonic decay is not affected by the KK states of $`W`$ since these states do not couple to (zero-mode) leptons. The amplitude for the process $`bs\gamma `$ gets a contribution from KK states of $`W`$ $`g_2^2/\left(16\pi ^2\right)m_bV_{tb}^{}V_{ts}m_t^2_n^\delta \left(n/R\right)^4`$ (the factor of $`m_t^2`$ reflects GIM cancelation). This is to be compared to the SM contribution $`g_2^2/\left(16\pi ^2\right)m_bV_{tb}^{}V_{ts}1/M_W^2`$: the ratio is $`\left(M_Wm_tR^2\right)^2_n^\delta 1/n^4`$. Thus, even if Eq. (6) is satisfied, i.e., the KK contribution to $`a_\mu `$ is comparable to the SM electroweak correction, the $`W_{KK}`$ contribution to $`bs\gamma `$ is smaller than in the SM. This is due to (a) an additional suppression by a factor of $`1/\left(m_tR\right)^2\stackrel{>}{}5`$ (since $`R^1\stackrel{>}{}400`$ GeV) in the case of $`bs\gamma `$ (as compared to $`a_\mu `$) and (b) $`_n^\delta 1/n^4<_n^\delta 1/n^2`$.

However, there is a larger contribution to the amplitude for $`bs\gamma `$ from loops with KK states of charged would-be-Goldstone boson (WGB) as follows. With only one Higgs doublet, the zero-mode charged WGB is unphysical since it becomes the longitudinal component of $`W`$. However, the excited (KK) states of charged WGB are physical and have masses $`n/R`$ (assuming $`1/RM_H`$). The coupling of the KK states of charged WGB to right-handed top quark is the same as for the zero-mode charged WGB (i.e., longitudinal $`W`$) and is $`\lambda _t\sqrt{2}m_t/v`$. Thus, the loop diagram with KK states of charged WGB and top quark gives an amplitude for $`bs\gamma `$ given by $`\lambda _t^2/\left(16\pi ^2\right)m_bV_{tb}^{}V_{ts}_n^\delta \left(n/R\right)^2`$. The ratio of this contribution to the SM amplitude is $`\left(m_tR\right)^2_n^\delta 1/n^2`$ and is clearly larger than the $`W_{KK}`$ contribution. Moreover, if Eq. (6) is satisfied, i.e., $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$, then this additional amplitude for $`bs\gamma `$ is also comparable to the SM amplitude. Such a large contribution to the process $`bs\gamma `$ is not allowed since the SM prediction for the rate agrees with experiment to within $`20\%`$ (combining theory and experiment $`1\sigma `$ errors). Thus, with one Higgs doublet (and assuming no other new physics contributions to $`bs\gamma `$), we see that the constraint from $`BX_s\gamma `$ rules out the possibility that the contribution to the MMM from KK states of electroweak gauge bosons is comparable to the SM electroweak correction.

However, if the Higgs sector is non-minimal, then the contribution of KK states of charged Higgs to the process $`bs\gamma `$ is modified. For example, in the $`2`$-Higgs-doublet model (Model-II) , a cancelation occurs between the contribution of KK states of physical charged Higgs and the contribution of the KK states of the charged WGB mentioned above. This opens up the possibility that $`a_\mu ^{KK}a_\mu ^{EW}`$. Note that the loop contribution to $`a_\mu `$ from KK states of charged Higgs is negligible in this model since it is suppressed by additional powers of $`m_\mu `$ compared to the contribution due to KK states of $`W`$.

## 4 Conclusions

In summary, we have revisited the contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon (MMM) in models with flat extra dimensions of size $``$ TeV-1 accessible to the SM particles. In particular, we analyzed a model with colored particles (quarks and gluon) propagating in a sub-space of the bulk in which non-colored particles (leptons, Higgs and electroweak gauge bosons) propagate. In such a model, the constraints on the size of the extra dimensions from tree-level processes and the $`T`$ parameter (which have been analyzed previously) can be evaded. Thus, in this model the contribution to the MMM from the KK states of electroweak gauge bosons can be (potentially) comparable to the SM electroweak correction (unlike in other types of models). However, with only one Higgs doublet, once the constraint from contribution of KK states to the process $`bs\gamma `$ (which has not been considered before) is imposed, we have shown that such a large contribution to the MMM is not possible. The $`bs\gamma `$ constraint can be relaxed in models with more than one Higgs doublet and then a large contribution to the MMM becomes possible.