text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this decade, experiments will begin to thoroughly explore the origin of electroweak symmetry breaking. The description of electroweak symmetry breaking in the Standard Model, in terms of a fundamental scalar Higgs field, is almost certainly incomplete. The quadratically divergent radiative corrections to the Higgs mass suggest the existence of new physics at TeV energies that stabilizes the weak scale. Until recently, all theories for this stabilization could be grouped into two categories: those that rely on new strong dynamics or compositeness near a TeV (such as technicolor, composite Higgs, or theories with a low fundamental Planck scale), and those with low-scale supersymmetry. Theories with low scale supersymmetry are particularly attractive since they allow a perturbative description of the physics that softens the quadratic divergences, and naturally lead to light Higgs bosons, as seems favored by precision electroweak data.

Recently, a qualitatively new category of realistic theories of electroweak symmetry breaking has been introduced . These models, based on the physics of “theory space”  (see also ), offer a new mechanism for softening the quadratic divergences in the Higgs mass. Electroweak symmetry breaking is accomplished with naturally light Higgs bosons, which descend from non-linear sigma model fields whose mass is protected by “chiral” symmetries of the sigma model (The first attempts at models of this kind were the “composite Higgs” theories ). The physics is perturbative at energies parametrically above the TeV scale, ultimately requiring UV completion near $`10100`$ TeV where the non-linear sigma model fields become strongly coupled. However, the physics of electroweak symmetry breaking and the new physics at the TeV scale is weakly coupled. These models are fully realistic, incorporating fermion masses without producing dangerous flavor-changing neutral currents. Additionally, there are new stable weakly interacting scalars which can provide WIMP dark matter.

In  the construction of naturally light scalars with gauge, Yukawa and quartic self-couplings from theory space was described, and one fairly simple model of electroweak symmetry breaking was presented. In this paper, we describe this model in more detail and begin an exploration of its phenomenology.

We start by describing the bosonic field content and symmetries of these models which are associated with an $`N\times N`$ toroidal theory space (or “moose” diagram) and discuss how the light (or “little”) Higgs fields emerge at low energies. Subsequently we incorporate the Standard Model fermions along with their Yukawa couplings. The chiral symmetry structure of the theory guarantees the absence of quadratic divergences in the little Higgs masses at low orders in perturbation theory. We then explicitly compute the leading one-loop radiative corrections to the little Higgs potential, verifying the absence of quadratic divergences. We find a calculable negative contribution to the little Higgs mass squared from the large top Yukawa coupling, which can naturally drive electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB). Finally, we discuss the $`N=2`$ model in detail, presenting the spectrum of the theory and the principal decay modes of the new states.

### 1.1 Fields and gauge symmetries

At energies beneath the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ 10–100 TeV, our theory is well-described by a gauged non-linear sigma model. The gauge sector includes $`N\times N`$ gauge groups $`G_𝐚`$, where $`𝐚=(m,n)`$ for $`N/2<m,nN/2`$ and we periodically identify $`(m,n)=(m+N,n)=(m,n+N)`$. We take $`G_𝐚=SU(3)`$ except for $`G_\mathrm{𝟎}=SU(2)\times U(1)`$, where $`\mathrm{𝟎}=(0,0)`$.

The non-linear sigma model fields are $`3\times 3`$ unitary matrices transforming as bi-fundamentals under nearest neighbor gauge groups. The gauge group and field content of this model can be represented by a theory space, shown in Fig. 1 for the case $`N=4`$. Each field can be labeled by a “link” $`l=(𝐚,𝐛)`$, where $`𝐚\text{ and }𝐛`$ are adjacent sites:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_l=e^{i\pi _l},\text{with}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\overline{l}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_l^{}$$
(1.1)
We adopt the convention $`\overline{(𝐚,𝐛)}(𝐛,𝐚)`$. Under the gauge symmetries $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_l`$ corresponding to link $`l=(𝐚,𝐛)`$ transforms as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_lg_𝐚\mathrm{\Sigma }_lg_𝐛^1$$
(1.2)
Here, $`g_\mathrm{𝟎}=h_{SU(2)}\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\theta }{\sqrt{3}}T_8)`$ is an element of the gauge group $`G_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, where $`h_{SU(2)}`$ commutes with $`T_8`$. The kinetic part of the action, including gauge interactions, is

$$_K=\underset{𝐚}{}\frac{1}{2g_𝐚^2}\mathrm{tr}F_𝐚^2+\underset{l}{}\frac{f_l^2}{4}\mathrm{tr}|D^\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_l|^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(1.3)
with a covariant derivative

$$D^\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_l=^\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_l+iA_𝐚^\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_li\mathrm{\Sigma }_lA_𝐛^\mu .$$
(1.4)
For simplicity, we take all the in principle independent $`f_l`$ constants to be the same. The ellipses in equation (1.3) represent operators involving more than two derivatives suppressed by powers of the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The natural size for this cutoff is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=4\pi f`$, where the theory becomes strongly coupled. Since we will only be interested in energies well below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we will ignore these higher derivative operators. We also have the usual QCD $`SU(3)_{\text{color}}`$ gauge symmetry, under which all these fields are neutral.

In addition to the operators in (1.3) we can include non-derivative terms as well. We must first classify all operators and the natural size of their coefficients . Non-derivative gauge invariant operators can be constructed from “Wilson” lines. A line $`\mathrm{}`$ is a collection of sequential links $`l_1,\mathrm{},l_n`$ where $`l_i=(𝐚_i,𝐚_{i+1})`$. The associated Wilson line $`W_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the product of the link fields $`W_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l_2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l_n}`$. Wilson loops are Wilson lines for closed paths. We will represent Wilson loops by pictures of the path with the initial site $`𝐚`$ labeled, traversed in the counterclockwise direction. Especially important will be the fundamental “plaquettes”, the Wilson loops associated with the smallest square paths. For example, the symbol $`{}_{𝐚}{}^{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }`$ represents the operator

$${}_{𝐚}{}^{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(𝐚,𝐚+𝐮)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(𝐚+𝐮,𝐚+𝐮+𝐯)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(𝐚+𝐮+𝐯,𝐚+𝐯)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(𝐚+𝐯,𝐚)}.$$
(1.5)
where $`𝐮,𝐯`$ are the unit vectors on the moose $`𝐮=(1,0)`$, $`𝐯=(0,1)`$.

In classifying the natural sizes for the coefficients of operators constructed from Wilson loops we need to understand their transformation properties under the chiral symmetries carried by each link:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_lL_l\mathrm{\Sigma }_lR_l^{}.$$
(1.6)
A Wilson line breaks the independent $`R_{l_i},L_{l_{i+1}}`$ symmetry transformation to the diagonal $`R_{l_i}=L_{l_{i+1}}`$, for each $`l_i`$ in the line. Note that the gauge couplings in (1.3) also break these chiral symmetries, and we expect that gauge interactions will then induce Wilson loop operators. But these gauge interactions must come in pairs: any breaking associated with the link $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ must be accompanied by the conjugate breaking of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$. So the only operators which are induced by the gauge interactions are products of

$$\mathrm{tr}W_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{tr}W_{\mathrm{}}^{}.$$
(1.7)
Since each chiral symmetry breaking is accompanied by a gauge coupling, the natural size for the coefficient of the operator in (1.7) is $`16\pi ^2f^4(g^2/(16\pi ^2))^n`$ where $`n`$ is the number of links in $`\mathrm{}`$. Therefore our action includes these terms, with a naturally small coefficient of this size. This power counting argument shows that this operator will be renormalized with quadratic divergences appearing only at $`n`$ loops. For $`N>2`$, one loop infrared contributions of order $`g^4/16\pi ^2`$ will dominate over the ultraviolet contributions.

We can in addition add interactions that are not generated in this way, by including operators that break the chiral symmetries in a different pattern than the breaking by the gauge couplings. The coefficients of these operators are therefore in principle unrelated to the gauge couplings. We choose the largest new symmetry breaking interactions to correspond to plaquette operators $`\mathrm{tr}{}_{𝐚}{}^{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }`$ with coefficients $`\lambda _𝐚`$:

$$_{\text{pl}}=f^4\underset{𝐚}{}\mathrm{tr}{}_{𝐚}{}^{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\lambda _𝐚+\text{ h.c.}$$
(1.8)
Other gauge invariant operators will be induced with naturally smaller coefficients. For generic $`N`$, these plaquettes are the gauge invariant operators involving the smallest number of link fields. For $`N=2,3`$, there are gauge invariant operators involving fewer link fields (the Wilson lines wrapping cycles of the torus). These however break different chiral symmetries and are only generated at high loop order. Just as the breaking of chiral symmetries associated with the gauge couplings generates other interactions, the plaquettes induce all non-derivative gauge invariant operators. For instance, consider a closed loop $`\mathrm{}`$ which is the boundary of a region tiled by some collection of plaquettes. Then $`\mathrm{tr}W_{\mathrm{}}`$ is generated with a coefficient proportional to $`16\pi ^2f^4`$ times the product $`\lambda /16\pi ^2`$ for all the tiling plaquettes. The natural size for a general gauge invariant operator may be worked out by keeping track of which chiral symmetries the operator breaks just as we did with the gauge couplings, remembering that the plaquette operator $`\mathrm{tr}{}_{𝐚}{}^{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }`$ breaks the chiral symmetries associated with all the corners of $`{}_{𝐚}{}^{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }`$. Because of the reduced gauge symmetry at $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$, we may include extra gauge invariant plaquette operators in the action. There are four such operators since only four plaquettes border the “special” site:

$$_{\text{pl}_8}=f^4\mathrm{tr}\sqrt{12}𝐓_\mathrm{𝟖}\left({}_{\mathrm{𝟎}}{}^{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\alpha _{\text{++}}+\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_\mathrm{𝟎}\alpha _{\text{+ –}}+\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }^\mathrm{𝟎}\alpha _{\text{– –}}+{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟎}}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\alpha _{\text{– +}}\right)+\text{ h.c.}$$
(1.9)
We call these special operators “$`T_8`$ plaquettes.”

Finally, the Standard Model fermions are charged only under $`SU(3)_{\text{color}}\times G_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, with their familiar Standard Model quantum numbers. We will see that the non-linear sigma model fields Higgs the full gauge symmetry down to the Standard Model $`SU(3)_{\text{color}}\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ symmetry.

### 1.2 Discrete Symmetries

The site, link and plaquette structure of theory space allows for discrete symmetries associated with geometric transformations. These include rotations $`R`$ by $`90^{}`$ about an axis through the site $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ perpendicular to the theory space.This takes a site $`𝐚=(m,n)`$ into $`R𝐚=(n,m)`$. On a link $`l=(𝐚,𝐛)`$ $`R`$ acts as $`R_l=(R𝐚,R𝐛)`$. We also have theory space “parities” $`P_{u,v}`$ which correspond to reflection about the $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐯`$ axes respectively: $`P_u𝐚=(m,n)`$, $`P_v𝐚=(m,n)`$, and similar action on the links. Note that these eight discrete transformations, comprising the point symmetry group $`D_4`$, can be generated by the two transformations $`R`$ and $`P_u`$. On fields

$`RA_𝐚^\mu `$ $`=A_{R𝐚}^\mu `$ $`P_uA_𝐚^\mu `$ $`=A_{P_u𝐚}^\mu `$ (1.10a)
$`R\mathrm{\Sigma }_l`$ $`=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Rl}`$ $`P_u\mathrm{\Sigma }_l`$ $`=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{P_ul}`$ (1.10b)
The action of these transformations on plaquettes follows from these rules:

$`R{}_{𝐚}{}^{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }`$ $`=\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_{R𝐚}`$ (1.11a)
$`P_u{}_{𝐚}{}^{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }`$ $`=\left(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_{P_u𝐚}\right)^{}`$ (1.11b)
If we demand that these transformations are symmetries of the action, the gauge and plaquette couplings must satisfy the relations

$`g_{R𝐚}`$ $`=g_𝐚`$ $`g_{P_u𝐚}`$ $`=g_𝐚`$ (1.12a)
$`\lambda _{R𝐚𝐮}`$ $`=\lambda _𝐚`$ $`\lambda _{P_u𝐚𝐮}`$ $`=\lambda _𝐚^{}`$ (1.12b)
The rotational symmetry forces the four special plaquette couplings to be equal $`\alpha _{\text{++}}=\alpha _{\text{+ –}}=\alpha _{\text{– +}}=\alpha _{\text{++}}\alpha +iϵ`$, while the parity symmetry forces $`ϵ=0`$. We are not obliged to impose these symmetries exactly, and in fact, our final Lagrangian will preserve only the $`_4`$ subgroup generated by the $`90^{}`$ rotation $`R`$. Other patterns of symmetry breaking are also possible.

### 1.3 Little Higgs

We can now discuss the origin of natural electroweak symmetry breaking in this class of models. We will later analyze the specific case $`N=2`$ in detail.

Since the theory (so far) has a $`D_4`$ symmetry, we take $`ϵ=0`$, keeping only the largest couplings $`g_𝐚,\lambda _𝐚,\text{ and }\alpha `$. We will assume that these couplings are all perturbative; as we have discussed all other operators have smaller effects and may be treated as further perturbations.

In this gauged non-linear sigma model only some subgroup of the gauge symmetry is realized at low energies—many of the $`\pi _l`$ are “eaten”, giving masses to many of the gauge bosons. We will choose the plaquette couplings such that the vacuum field configuration is near $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_l=1`$. Under the uniform gauge transformation $`g_𝐚=g_{SU(2)\times U(1)}`$ independent of $`𝐚`$, the configuration $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_l=1`$ is invariant, showing that the diagonal $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge group is left unbroken. Thus there are massless $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge bosons together with a spectrum of gauge bosons with mass scale set by $`gf`$ with $`g`$ a typical gauge coupling. In order to see this explicitly and identify the spectrum of the theory, we expand the Lagrangian to quadratic order in $`A_𝐚^\mu `$ and $`\pi _l`$. It is convenient to define link fields pointing in the $`𝐮,𝐯`$ directions as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(𝐚,𝐚+𝐮)}e^{i\pi _𝐚^u},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(𝐚,𝐚+𝐯)}e^{i\pi _𝐚^v}$$
(1.13)
The Lagrangian to quadratic order is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ^{\text{quad}}=& \underset{𝐚}{}\frac{1}{2g_𝐚^2}\mathrm{tr}F_𝐚^2+\underset{𝐚}{}\mathrm{tr}\frac{f^2}{4}\left(^\mu \pi _𝐚^u+A_𝐚^\mu A_{𝐚+𝐮}^\mu \right)^2+uv\hfill \\ & +\underset{𝐚}{}f^4\lambda _𝐚\mathrm{tr}(\pi _𝐚^u+\pi _{𝐚+𝐯}^v\pi _{𝐚+𝐯}^u\pi _𝐚^v)^2+_{\text{pl}_8}^{\text{quad}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.14)
where to save space we have not written the $`T_8`$ plaquette contribution explicitly. From the quadratic piece involving the gauge bosons we see explicitly that only the uniform configurations with $`A_𝐚^\mu =A_{SU(2)}^i𝐓^i+A_{U(1)}𝐓_\mathrm{𝟖}`$ are massless, with all remaining $`N^21`$ gauge boson octets acquiring mass. Since we have $`2N^2`$ link scalars $`\pi _l`$, this means that $`2N^2(N^21)=N^2+1`$ scalars remain uneaten. The plaquettes give a mass to $`N^21`$ independent combinations of these scalars (there are $`N^2`$ plaquette terms but the sum of all $`N^2`$ linear combinations that appear vanishes, so only $`N^21`$ independent combinations become massive). Therefore we expect $`(N^2+1)(N^21)=2`$ scalars to be massless at this order. These zero modes are easy to identify in this case: they are the uniform configurations for the fields $`\pi _𝐚^u,\pi _𝐚^v`$

$$\pi _𝐚^u=\frac{2u}{Nf},\pi _𝐚^v=\frac{2v}{Nf}$$
(1.15)
where we have included the factor $`2/(Nf)`$ to canonically normalize $`u`$ and $`v`$.

Since there is an unbroken discrete $`_4`$ symmetry under which $`uv`$ and $`vu`$, it is convenient to group $`u,v`$ into a field that transforms homogeneously under this $`_4`$. Defining $`=(u+iv)/\sqrt{2}`$, we have $`i`$, $`^{}i^{}`$ under the $`_4`$ symmetry. The components of the $`3\times 3`$ matrix $``$ are

$$=\frac{u+iv}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\varphi +\eta /2\sqrt{3}& h_1/\sqrt{2}\\ h_2^{}/\sqrt{2}& \eta /\sqrt{3}\end{array}\right)$$
(1.16)
where under the Standard Model $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge symmetry, $`\varphi ,\eta `$ are complex fields transforming respectively in the $`\text{3}_0,\text{1}_0`$ representation, and $`h_1,h_2`$ have the quantum numbers $`\text{2}_{1/2}`$ of the Standard Model Higgs.

Going beyond quadratic order these zero modes have gauge interactions under the unbroken $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge symmetry, as well as a quartic coupling which can be found by expanding the plaquette action and integrating out the heavy modes. In the case where all the $`\lambda _𝐚`$ are equal, in accordance with the extra-dimensional intuition, there is no heavy-light-light scalar coupling thus we don’t need to integrate out the heavy modes and we find:

$$\text{constant}+4\lambda \mathrm{tr}|[,^{}]|^2+\mathrm{}\lambda \mathrm{tr}(h_1h_1^{}h_2h_2^{})^2+\lambda (h_1^{}h_1h_2^{}h_2)^2$$
(1.17)
where $`\lambda =4/N^2\mathrm{Re}\lambda `$.111For general $`\lambda _𝐚`$, the potential is given by $`16\left(_𝐚(\mathrm{Re}\lambda _𝐚)^1\right)^1\mathrm{tr}|[,^{}]|^2`$ We have again neglected the $`T_8`$ plaquettes, which do not affect the qualitative discussion. Note that the Higgs interactions are very similar to the quartic potential for the Higgses of the supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). The commutator form naturally arises from the plaquettes and is essential for obtaining a tree-level quartic potential but no tree-level mass. This is crucial for generating a natural hierarchy while incorporating hard quartic couplings. It is this feature that distinguishes these theory space models from previous attempts at obtaining the Higgs as a pseudo-Goldstone boson.

We found that, classically, we have two massless modes with quartic interactions. Radiative corrections will produce masses for these scalars, but as we have argued they are free of quadratic divergences at one-loop. Thus they are naturally light compared to the cutoff of the theory. We will call these naturally light scalars little Higgses. For a general theory space the spectrum of little Higgses can be determined from the topology of the theory space, as described in . We may introduce masses for the little Higgses classically by turning on a non-zero value for $`ϵ`$. As mentioned in the beginning of the section, up to now the theory has a $`D_4`$ symmetry (under which $`(h_1,h_2)`$ transform as a doublet) which enforces $`ϵ=0`$. The fermion couplings will break this $`D_4`$ symmetry, allowing us to preserve at most the $`_4`$ subgroup. Although not essential, this $`_4`$ symmetry has several phenomenological virtues, including helping prevent $`\eta `$ from acquiring a vev, and we will keep it as an exact symmetry of our model.

### 1.4 Fermions

The Standard Model fermions have their conventional charges under the $`G_\mathrm{𝟎}=SU(2)\times U(1)`$ symmetry; they therefore have the same charges under the diagonal subgroup that becomes the Standard Model $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. In order for these fermions to acquire mass, they need Yukawa couplings to the Higgs fields, which must arise from gauge-invariant couplings to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_l`$’s. Since the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_l`$ are $`3\times 3`$ matrices and naturally act on triplets, we write the SM fermions as 3 components column vectors. In terms of left handed Weyl fields:

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{c}q\\ 0\end{array}\right)U^c=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ u^c\end{array}\right).D^c=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ d^c\end{array}\right)L=\left(\begin{array}{c}l\\ 0\end{array}\right)E^c=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ e^c\end{array}\right)$$

Yukawa couplings come from gauge-invariant operators of the form

$$Q^TW_{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝟎}}U^c$$

where $`W_{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ is some linear combination of Wilson loops that start and end at $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$. A convenient set of such Wilson loops is provided by $`𝒰=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟎},𝐮}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐮,2𝐮}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐮,\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ and $`𝒱=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟎},𝐯}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐯,2𝐯}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐯,\mathrm{𝟎}}`$, together with $`𝒰^{}`$ and $`𝒱^{}`$. Under the $`_4`$ discrete symmetry, $`𝒰𝒱,𝒱𝒰^{}`$. It is convenient to form linear combinations that transform homogeneously under the $`_4`$:

$`𝒰+𝒰^{}\pm (𝒱+𝒱^{})`$ $`\pm \left[𝒰+𝒰^{}\pm (𝒱+𝒱^{})\right]`$ (1.18a)
$`𝒰𝒰^{}\pm i(𝒱𝒱^{})`$ $`i\left[𝒰𝒰^{}\pm i(𝒱𝒱^{})\right]`$ (1.18b)
where expanding to low order in $`u`$ and $`v`$
$`𝒰+𝒰^{}\pm (𝒱+𝒱^{})`$ $`\text{const}+𝒪\left(^2/f^2\right)+\mathrm{}`$
$`𝒰𝒰^{}+i(𝒱𝒱^{})i/f+\mathrm{}`$ $`𝒰𝒰^{}i(𝒱𝒱^{})i^{}/f+\mathrm{}`$
Since the first combination begins at quadratic order in the Higgs fields, it does not produce a Yukawa coupling for the SM fermions. We therefore use the second combination in the Yukawa coupling:

$$\lambda _ufQ^T\left[𝒰𝒰^{}\pm i(𝒱𝒱^{})\right]U^c$$
(1.19)
where the $`_4`$ is preserved with $`q,u^c`$ transforming so that $`(qu^c)\pm i(qu^c)`$. Choosing the plus sign and expanding to linear order in the Higgs field, we get:

$$\lambda _uqh_1u^c$$
(1.20)
In some models, like the one we study later in more detail, only $`h_1`$ gets a vev. In that case, in order to give a non-vanishing mass to both the up and down type quarks, we choose the opposite sign for the down sector:

$$\lambda _dfD_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{T}\left[𝒰𝒰^{}i(𝒱𝒱^{})\right]Q=\lambda _dh_1^{}qd^c+\mathrm{}$$
(1.21)
With this choice, $`q,d^c`$ transforming so that $`(qd^c)i(qd^c)`$ preserves the $`_4`$ symmetry. We can write a similar operator for the leptons:

$$\lambda _lfE^T\left[𝒰𝒰^{}i(𝒱𝒱^{})\right]L=\lambda _lh_1^{}le+\mathrm{}$$
(1.22)
Each of these operators is non-local in theory space and each breaks *all* the chiral symmetries protecting the little Higgs mass. Their inclusion directly in the Lagrangian would re-introduce quadratic divergences at one-loop of order $`\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/(4\pi )^2`$. This is in contrast to the gauge couplings and plaquettes which only collectively break the chiral symmetries, introducing quadratic divergences only at higher order. The divergences generated by these non-local operators are negligible for all fields except the top quark. We will therefore generate the top Yukawa coupling from local interactions in theory space by effectively spreading the top quark out in theory space. We do this by introducing massive vector-like fermions on the sites and coupling them to the chiral fermions on the special site through link fields. Upon integrating out the massive fermions, the top Yukawa coupling is generated. The $`_4`$ symmetry requires the introduction of two sets of vector-like fermions, $`\chi `$’s and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$’s. We place them along the $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐯`$ axes: $`\chi _{p𝐮},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐮}`$ at the site $`p𝐮`$, where $`p`$ is a an integer, and $`\chi _{p𝐯},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐯}`$ at the site $`p𝐯`$, all of which are triplets under the $`SU(3)`$ gauge symmetry at the corresponding site. In addition, each of these fermions are triplets under $`SU(3)`$ color. Finally they also carry charge $`1/3`$ under the $`U(1)`$ gauge factor in $`G_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. We also introduce the conjugate of each of these fields:

$`\chi _{p𝐮},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐮}`$ $`\left(\mathrm{𝟑}_c\times \overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}\right)_{+\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}`$ $`\chi _{p𝐮}^c,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐮}^c`$ $`\left(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_c\times \mathrm{𝟑}\right)_{\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}`$ (1.23)
$`\chi _{p𝐯},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐯}`$ $`\left(\mathrm{𝟑}_c\times \overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}\right)_{+\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}`$ $`\chi _{p𝐯}^c,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐯}^c`$ $`\left(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_c\times \mathrm{𝟑}\right)_{\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}`$
The interactions can be represented by the “traffic pattern” of Fig. (2). Note that the $`_4`$ symmetry is manifest in this figure and will be preserved with the following charge assignment for the fermions:

$`Q`$ $``$ $`e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}Q`$ $``$ $`iQ`$ $``$ $`e^{i\frac{3\pi }{4}}Q`$ $``$ $`Q`$ (1.24)
$`U^c`$ $``$ $`e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}U^c`$ $``$ $`iU^c`$ $``$ $`e^{i\frac{3\pi }{4}}U^c`$ $``$ $`U^c`$
$`\chi _{p𝐮}`$ $``$ $`\chi _{p𝐯}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐮}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐯}`$ $``$ $`\chi _{p𝐮}`$
$`\chi _{p𝐮}^c`$ $``$ $`\chi _{p𝐯}^c`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐮}^c`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐯}^c`$ $``$ $`\chi _{p𝐮}^c`$
The explicit Lagrangian is given by:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{\text{top}}& =M_L^{}Q_3^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟎},𝐮}\chi _𝐮^c+i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟎},𝐮}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_𝐮^c\right)+M_R^{}\left(\chi _𝐮\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐮,\mathrm{𝟎}}+i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_𝐮\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐮,\mathrm{𝟎}}\right)U_3^c\hfill \\ & +e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\left[M_L^{}Q_3^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟎},𝐯}\chi _𝐯^c+i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟎},𝐯}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_𝐯^c\right)+M_R^{}\left(\chi _𝐯\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐯,\mathrm{𝟎}}+i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_𝐯\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐯,\mathrm{𝟎}}\right)U_3^c\right]\hfill \\ & +\underset{p0}{}\{\chi _{p𝐮}(M\chi _{p𝐮}^c+M^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p𝐮,(p+1)𝐮}\chi _{(p+1)𝐮}^c)+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐮}(M\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐮}^c+M^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p𝐮,(p+1)𝐮}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(p+1)𝐮}^c)\hfill \\ & +e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}[\chi _{p𝐯}(M\chi _{p𝐯}^c+M^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p𝐯,(p+1)𝐯}\chi _{(p+1)𝐯}^c)+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐯}(M\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{p𝐯}^c+M^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p𝐯,(p+1)𝐯}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(p+1)𝐯}^c)]\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.25)
where, for notational simplicity we have chosen the same $`M`$ for every site. Other realistic models with a smaller fermion structure can be found in .

Integrating out the massive fermions gives the top quark Yukawa coupling. Extracting this Yukawa coupling requires the diagonalization of the full mass matrix, but if all the $`M`$’s are comparable, it is given parametrically by $`\lambda _tM/f`$. This method of implementing Yukawa couplings preserves a $`U(2)^5`$ flavor symmetry broken only by the the Yukawa matrices of the first two generations, ensuring the absence of dangerous flavor changing neutral currents.

The Lagrangian

$$=_K+_{\text{pl}}+_{\text{pl}_8}+_{\text{fermions}}+_{\text{other}}$$
(1.26)
specifies our model, where $`_{\text{other}}`$ includes higher dimension operators suppressed by powers of $`4\pi f`$ as well as non-derivative operators with naturally sized coefficients. The parameters are $`g_𝐚,\lambda _𝐚,\alpha ,ϵ`$, and the dimensionful parameters $`f`$, $`M`$’s, $`M_L^{}`$ and $`M_R^{}`$. $`g_𝐚`$, $`\lambda _a`$ and $`\alpha `$ are independently renormalized, and we take them to be perturbative with sizes $`\lambda _𝐚,\alpha g_𝐚^2`$. The fermion masses $`M^{}s`$,$`M_L^{}`$ and $`M_R^{}`$ are also independently renormalized and protected by chiral symmetries. Finally $`ϵ`$, which breaks the $`D_4`$ symmetry as well as the chiral symmetries of the $`T_8`$ plaquette is then renormalized through a combination of $`M_{L,R}^{}`$ and $`\alpha `$ at two loops, giving a tiny (and irrelevant) natural size $`ϵ\alpha M_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/f^2(16\pi ^2)^3`$.

### 1.5 Radiative Corrections

As we have argued, the chiral symmetries protecting the little Higgs are only broken by combinations of several couplings, and therefore quadratic divergences are absent at one loop. In the case $`N3`$ the little Higgs potential is dominated by finite IR effects and is calculable. In the $`N=2`$ case, there is in general a log divergence at one-loop and the UV and IR contributions are comparable. While our spurious symmetry analysis guarantees this result, it is reassuring to see it arise in perturbative calculation by computing the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg potential. We turn on the little Higgs fields $`v`$, and calculate the mass matrix $`M(v)`$ of the theory in presence of these background fields. The quadratic divergence is proportional to $`\mathrm{tr}M(v)^{}M(v)`$ and the logarithmic divergence to $`\mathrm{tr}(M(v)^{}M(v))^2`$. As an example, we look at the simple circular theory space studied in  with only 3 sites. Turning on a uniform background value for the link fields: $`U_i=e^{iv\sigma _3/f\sqrt{3}}`$, the mass matrix squared, $`M^{}M`$, for the charged gauge bosons is proportional to:

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2& e^{iv/f\sqrt{3}}& e^{iv/f\sqrt{3}}\\ e^{iv/f\sqrt{3}}& 2& e^{iv/f\sqrt{3}}\\ e^{iv/f\sqrt{3}}& e^{iv/f\sqrt{3}}& 2\end{array}\right)$$
(1.27)
We can easily see that $`\mathrm{tr}M^{}M`$ doesn’t depend on $`v`$ since $`v`$ doesn’t appear anywhere on the diagonal. In terms of mass eigenstates, turning on v increases the mass squared of light fields but decreases the mass of heavy fields. It is similarly easy to see that $`\mathrm{tr}\left(M^{}M\right)^2`$ doesn’t depend on $`v`$, so there is neither quadratic nor log divergence at one loop in this model. In the $`N=2`$ case, the mass matrix is proportional to:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 2\mathrm{cos}(v/f\sqrt{2})\\ 2\mathrm{cos}(v/f\sqrt{2})& 2\end{array}\right)$$
(1.28)
Again there is no $`v`$ on the diagonal and thus no quadratic divergence. However $`\mathrm{tr}\left(M^{}M\right)^2=8(1+\mathrm{cos}^2(v/f\sqrt{N}))`$, and so there is a log divergence in this case.

In our model with a 2 dimensional lattice of sites the mass matrices are larger, but the same observations hold true. Radiative corrections generate mass terms:

$$V_{\text{quadratic}}=m_1^2|h_1|^2+m_2^2|h_2|^2+m_\varphi ^2\mathrm{tr}|\varphi |^2+m_\eta ^2|\eta |^2$$
(1.29)
Note that there is no $`h_1^{}h_2`$ term or linear term in $`\eta `$ due to the $`_4`$ symmetry. If $`m_\varphi ^2,m_\eta ^2,m_2^2>0`$ and $`m_1^2<0`$, we will trigger electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB). Since the quartic potential vanishes for $`h_1=h_2`$, we also require $`m_1^2+m_2^2>0`$ to avoid rolling away along this flat direction. One might worry that after EWSB, $`\varphi `$ and $`\eta `$ could get large vevs. However, the $`_4`$ symmetry which leads to an unbroken $`_2`$ symmetry even after electroweak symmetry breaking forbids odd powers of $`\varphi `$ and $`\eta `$. With positive $`m_{\varphi ,\eta }^2`$, both vevs vanish.

For $`N3`$, the mass terms in (1.29) are dominated by finite contributions which are in principle calculable. In the $`N=2`$ case, most of them are log divergent at one loop and therefore not calculable. However, a spurion analysis shows that even in that case, the mass *difference* between $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ is dominated by IR effects and is finite at one loop. In the limit where Yukawa couplings are neglected, the theory has a $`D_4`$ symmetry under which $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ form a doublet and are therefore degenerate. Consequently, the mass difference must come from fermion loops. By computing the fermionic contribution to the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg potential when $`N=2`$, we find that this is indeed the case, the result being:

$$\left(\frac{3M^2M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}M_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\pi ^2f^2(M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}M_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}\mathrm{log}\frac{M^2+4M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M^2+4M_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)|h_1|^2+𝒪(h^4)$$
(1.30)
This is negative for any values of $`M_L^{},M_R^{}`$ and therefore can trigger EWSB in a natural way. This is an improvement over  where EWSB was triggered by a non-zero $`ϵ`$; here it is driven by top quark radiative corrections, much as in the MSSM.

### 1.6 Scales

In the very low energy theory, keeping only the classically massless modes, the Higgs would get a quadratically divergent mass. It is the appearance of the heavy modes that cancel this divergence. For example it is the appearance of heavy “KK” gauge bosons at energy $`gf/N`$ which cancels the divergence of the low energy gauge boson loop. Similarly, it is the heavy fermions introduced to “delocalize” the top quark which cancel the divergent top quark loop of the very low energy theory. Finally, the heavy scalars which get masses from the plaquettes are necessary to cancel the divergence from the Higgs quartic couplings. This observation allows us to estimate the various scales of the theory such as the Higgs mass and the cutoff $`4\pi f`$. For example the one loop gauge contribution to the Higgs mass is approximately

$$m_h^2\frac{g_{LE}^2}{16\pi ^2}\left(\frac{gf}{N}\right)^2\left(\frac{g_{LE}^2}{16\pi ^2}\right)^2\left(4\pi f\right)^2\left(\frac{\alpha _{LE}}{4\pi }\right)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2$$
(1.31)
where $`g_{LE}^2=g^2/N^2`$ is the low energy coupling, i.e. the coupling of the unbroken gauge group. This is to be contrasted with the Standard Model case where:

$$m_h^2\left(\frac{\alpha _{LE}}{4\pi }\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2$$
(1.32)
The presence of an extra $`\alpha _{LE}/4\pi `$ factor in our case allows us to take the cutoff of our theory parametrically above the TeV scale, near $``$ 10–100 TeV, and still have perturbative new physics at the TeV scale stabilizing the Higgs. A similar conclusion can be reached for the quartic couplings.

The same simple estimate can be done for the top quark contribution, but it is more model dependent:

$$m_h^2\frac{\lambda _t^2}{16\pi ^2}M^2\left(\frac{\lambda _t^2}{16\pi ^2}\right)^2\left(4\pi f\right)^2\left(\frac{\alpha _t}{4\pi }\right)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2$$
(1.33)
where $`\lambda _t`$ is the top Yukawa coupling given parametrically by $`M/f`$. Again the additional $`\alpha _t/4\pi `$ factor allows us to choose the cutoff in the $`10`$ TeV region.

To summarize, in the very low energy theory beneath the masses of the heavy modes, we have the Standard Model with 2 Higgs doublets and other scalars in the $`100`$ GeV region. At roughly $`1`$ TeV, heavy fermions, scalars and vector bosons responsible for stabilizing the Higgs mass appear. Finally, at $``$ 10–100 TeV our description of the physics in terms of non-linear sigma model fields breaks down and a UV completion is needed. Although we can imagine many different possibilities for this UV completion (such as SUSY, new strong dynamics, low scale quantum gravity, etc.), they do not affect our description of electroweak symmetry breaking and we do not discuss it here. The important point is that the cutoff of our theory (where it becomes strongly coupled and a UV completion is needed) is parametrically above the scale where perturbative new physics appears to stabilize the weak hierarchy.

### 1.7 Dark Matter

As we have seen, our theory has a natural geometric $`_4`$ symmetry, generated by the $`90^{}`$ rotation $`R`$ on theory space. The scalars $`\varphi ,\eta ,h_1,h_2`$, together with the Standard Model fermions, are charged under this $`_4`$, and it is then broken along with the electroweak symmetry when the Higgs acquires its vev. However the combination $`P`$ of $`R^2`$ with a gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and a phase transformation on the fermions remains unbroken even after electroweak breaking:

$$P=R^2\mathrm{\Omega }e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}F},\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(1.34)
Where $`F`$ is a fermion number under which $`Q,L,\chi `$’s and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$’s have charge $`+1`$ and $`U^c,D^c,E^c,\chi ^c`$’s and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi ^c}`$’s have charge $`1`$. Under P, the Standard Model Higgses and fermions are even,

$$h_{1,2}h_{1,2},\psi _{SM}\psi _{SM}$$
(1.35)
while $`\varphi ,\eta `$ are odd

$$\varphi \varphi ,\eta \eta $$
(1.36)
Since this is an unbroken symmetry even after EWSB, $`\varphi `$ and $`\eta `$ do not acquire vevs as claimed earlier. Furthermore, the lightest scalar in the $`\varphi ,\eta `$ sector will be exactly stable. Depending on the parameters of the theory, this stable particle may be neutral, a linear combination of $`\varphi _3`$ and $`\eta `$. This particle with a mass in the $`100`$ GeV range provides a natural WIMP candidate for the dark matter of the universe, with weak-scale mass and cross-section.

## 2 $`N=2`$

In this section we examine the smallest model, with $`N=2`$, in detail. The price we pay for using such a small moose is the presence of small loops in the diagram, which are associated with operators generated with log divergent coefficients at one-loop. These operators must then be included in our Lagrangian with arbitrary coefficients of natural size $`g^4/(4\pi )^2`$. For $`N3`$, the natural size of the analogous operators is much smaller, and therefore negligible compared to the finite one-loop radiative correction.

The gauge group of this model is $`SU(3)^3\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$. The $`_4`$ symmetry allows for 2 independent $`SU(3)`$ couplings, but for simplicity we will take them to have a common value $`g_3`$. The $`SU(2)`$ and $`U(1)`$ gauge couplings are $`g_2`$ and $`g_1`$. The moose diagram for the model is shown in Fig. 3. The relevant parts of the Lagrangian are the kinetic terms, the 4 plaquettes, the 4 $`T_8`$ plaquettes, the fermion interactions and the operators generated with log divergence mentioned earlier.

For this particular model, the notation introduced earlier for the general $`N`$ torus is incomplete since there are two different links between every pair of adjacent sites. Therefore, instead of writing down formulæ, we will represent these operators by pictures. The operators that can be generated purely through gauge interactions are represented in Fig. 4. We call the resulting operators $`𝒪`$, $`𝒪^{}`$, $`𝒪_8`$ and $`𝒪_8^{}`$.

These operators appear with coefficient of natural size $`g^4/(4\pi )^2f^4`$. We also have two operators induced through plaquette interactions, $`𝒪_2`$ and $`𝒪_2^8`$, shown in Fig. 5.

These operators need two plaquettes to be generated and have natural size $`\lambda ^2/(16\pi ^2)f^4g^4/(4\pi )^2f^4`$. Thus our Lagrangian contains:

$$_{\text{other}}=\frac{g_3^4}{16\pi ^2}f^4\left(a𝒪_1+a^{}𝒪_1^{}+a_8𝒪_1^8+a_8^{}𝒪_8^{}+b𝒪_2+b_8𝒪_2^8\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(2.1)
where the ellipses represent subdominant terms of order $`g^6/(4\pi )^4`$ and higher. Note that we have scaled the coefficients of these operators with the largest gauge coupling; their natural sizes might somewhat smaller, corresponding to small values of the $`a`$’s and $`b`$’s.

### 2.1 Very low energy theory

The very low energy theory contains the SM particles, two Higgs doublets $`h_1,h_2`$, one complex $`SU(2)`$ triplet scalar $`\varphi `$ and one complex singlet scalar $`\eta `$. The scalar potential comes from three sources: first the plaquettes give a quartic interaction for the little Higgses. Second, the operators in $`_{\text{other}}`$ give mass terms. We assume that these mass squared terms are all positive. Finally, in order to break the electroweak symmetry, we need a negative mass squared for the Higgs. As advertised, this is achieved through the one loop top Yukawa contribution to the Higgs potential which was given in equation (1.30):

$$\left(\frac{M^2M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}M_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\pi ^2f^2(M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}M_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}\mathrm{log}\frac{M^2+4M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M^2+4M_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)|h_1|^2+𝒪(h^4)\mathrm{\Delta }_{m_1}^2|h_1|^2$$

To quartic order, the potential for the Higgs doublets is then given by:

$$\begin{array}{c}V(h_1,h_2)=2\left(\lambda \frac{\alpha }{2}\right)\left(|h_1|^4+|h_2|^4\right)2\left(\lambda +\alpha \right)|h_1^{}h_2|^2\hfill \\ \hfill 2\left(\lambda 2\alpha \right)|h_1|^2|h_2|^2+(m^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{m_1}^2)|h_1|^2+m^2|h_2|^2\end{array}$$
(2.2)
where $`m^2`$ is given in term of the coefficients appearing in $`_{\text{other}}`$:

$$m^2=\frac{g_3^4f^2}{16\pi ^2}\left[24(a+a^{}+b)+6(b_8+a_8^{})\right]$$
(2.3)
Assuming $`m^2<\mathrm{\Delta }_{m_1}^2`$ and $`2m^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{m_1}^2>0`$, $`h_1`$ gets a vev:

$$h_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v/2\end{array}\right)v^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{m_1}^2m^2}{2\left(\lambda \frac{\alpha }{2}\right)}=\left(246\text{ GeV}\right)^2$$
(2.4)
The physical spectrum is easily derived in unitary gauge where:

$$h_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \left(v+h_0\right)/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)h_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}H^+\\ \left(H_0+iA_0\right)/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)$$
(2.5)
The masses are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill m_{h_0}^2=& 2(\mathrm{\Delta }_{m_1}^2m^2)=4\left(\lambda \frac{\alpha }{2}\right)v^2\hfill \\ \hfill m_{H_0}^2=& m_{A_0}^2=2m^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{m_1}^2\hfill \\ \hfill m_{H^+}^2=& m^2\left(\lambda 2\alpha \right)v^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.6)
Note that in this model $`H_0`$ cannot decay to fermions or gauge bosons at tree level. After EWSB, the quartic potential generates cubic terms of the form $`H_0\varphi \varphi ,H_0\varphi \eta ,H_0\eta \eta `$ and therefore these decays will dominate if kinematically allowed. Otherwise $`H_0`$ will decay at loop level, for instance to gauge bosons via light scalar loops. Similar considerations apply to $`H^+`$. Next we turn to the triplet and singlet masses. There are two electrically charged scalars, $`\varphi _1^+`$ and $`\varphi _2^+`$, with masses

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill m_{\varphi _1^+}^2=& \left(\lambda +\alpha \right)v^2+m^218\frac{g_3^4}{16\pi ^2}(b_8+a_8^{})f^2\hfill \\ \hfill m_{\varphi _2^+}^2=& \left(2\lambda +\frac{\alpha }{2}\right)v^2+m^218\frac{g_3^4}{16\pi ^2}(b_8+a_8^{})f^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.7)
The mass splitting can be related to the Higgs doublets masses:

$$m_{\varphi _1^+}^2m_{\varphi _2^+}^2=\frac{1}{4}m_{h_0}^2+2\left(m_{H_0}^2m_{H^+}^2\right)$$
(2.8)
There are also 2 complex neutral scalars, $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$, which are linear combinations of $`\varphi _3`$ and $`\eta `$. The lightest of $`\varphi _1^+`$, $`\varphi _2^+`$, $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ is stable since all these are odd under the discrete $`P`$ symmetry introduced in section 1.7. Phenomenologically, we need the neutral states to be lightest for dark matter. The charged states will then typically decay to neutral states along with (on or off-shell) $`W`$’s.

### 2.2 Heavy modes

In addition to the little Higgses, the theory contains heavy TeV scale modes that are responsible for stabilizing the weak scale: 3 $`SU(2)`$ triplets, $`W_{1,2,3}^a`$, 3 $`SU(2)`$ doublets $`V_{1,2,3}^i`$ and 3 $`SU(2)`$ singlet $`B_{1,2,3}`$ vector bosons ; 1 complex and 1 real $`SU(2)`$ triplet $`\varphi _1^{},\varphi _3^{}`$, 3 $`SU(2)`$ doublets $`h_{1,2,3}^{}`$ and 1 complex and 1 real $`SU(2)`$ singlet scalars $`\eta _1^{},\eta _3^{}`$. There are also heavy fermions which we denote collectively by $`\chi `$. Table 1 gives the masses of these modes before EWSB, their quantum numbers, their main decay modes and their transformation properties under the unbroken $`P`$ symmetry introduced in section 1.7. For gauge bosons, the masses are calculated by diagonalizing the mass matrix found by setting the link fields to unity in the kinetic term. The scalar mass matrix is extracted from the plaquette potential, expanding the exponentials to quadratic order. Likewise, the interaction between the different modes are given by expanding the plaquettes and kinetic terms. The kinetic terms give vector-vector-scalar and scalar-scalar-vector couplings while the plaquettes give scalar-scalar-scalar coupling. It is straightforward to see that, when the little Higgses are uniform in theory space, there are no little Higgs-little Higgs-heavy scalar couplings.

### 2.3 Spectrum

As an illustration, we have chosen a typical set of parameters and calculated the full spectrum of the theory. For the input parameters in Table 2, the resulting spectrum is shown in Fig. 6. With this choice of parameters, the lightest Higgs mass is 174 GeV at tree level, and the UV completion scale is at 10 TeV. It is interesting to compare the values of the input coefficients for the special operators with the low-energy one-loop log-divergent radiative corrections, ignoring the log factor. In all cases, these input values are comparable to the one-loop corrections, demonstrating the absence of fine-tuning in these couplings. Finally, the finite negative contribution to the Higgs mass squared from the large top Yukawa coupling is $`(460`$ GeV$`)^2`$. For our light Higgs mass $`174`$ GeV, this required a bare positive mass squared of $`+(442`$GeV$`)^2`$. These mass squared choices are moderately tuned at the 10% level. This modest tuning can be reduced either with a somewhat heavier Higgs or with lighter masses for the vector-like $`\chi `$ fermions.

## 3 Conclusion

We have studied a class of realistic models of electroweak symmetry breaking in which the Higgs appears as an extended object in theory space. This class of models, first introduced in , is based on toroidal theory spaces. We reviewed and extended the analysis of the $`N\times N`$ torus and studied the $`N=2`$ case in detail.

Although our analysis was based on a specific theory space, the mechanism of EWSB applies more generally 222The general rules for building such models, together with the procedure for identifying the little Higgses from topological properties of the theory space, will be discussed in .. A robust prediction of all such models is the presence of at least two naturally light Higgs doublets. This is a consequence of the Higgs quartic couplings descending from plaquette interactions, producing commutator squared potentials. In the specific models studied in this paper there are additional weak triplets and singlets scalar at low energy. Theory spaces often have geometric discrete symmetries, such as the $`_4`$ symmetry which is broken to a $`_2`$ after electroweak symmetry breaking in the model we discussed. The light triplets and singlets are odd under this symmetry and therefore the lightest of these states is stable, providing a WIMP dark matter candidate. We also showed that the top quark can drive the Higgs mass negative and trigger EWSB in a natural way. At TeV energies, new physics appears to stabilize the weak scale. This new physics takes the form of new heavy particles which soften each of the quadratic divergences of the low energy theory: heavy gauge bosons cancel quadratically divergent gauge boson loops, heavy scalars cancel the quadratic divergence from the low energy quartic couplings and heavy fermions cancel the quadratic divergence from the top loop.

In the $`N=2`$ case, we computed the full spectrum of the theory for a typical set of parameters, and briefly discussed the primary decay modes for the new fields, leaving a more detailed study of both the collider phenomenology and cosmological implications of this theory to future work.

How do our theories compare with supersymmetric models of electroweak symmetry breaking? One of the features that makes supersymmetry attractive is its ability to accommodate precision electroweak data, as a consequence of its weakly coupled description of EWSB. Since our models are weakly coupled at the TeV scale, they share this success. In supersymmetry, there is often a flavor problem associated with flavor-changing neutral currents for the light generations, mediated by superpartners. In our models, the only new states which carry flavor are the heavy fermions which “delocalize” the top quark in theory space, and so there are no flavor-changing interactions involving the first two generations at the TeV scale. (This is similar to the situation in the “more minimal” supersymmetric models with heavy first two generation scalars ).

The supersymmetric Standard Model also has the virtue that it can be extrapolated to energies much higher than the TeV scale. A remarkable success of such an extrapolation is the supersymmetric prediction of gauge coupling unification. This prediction remains one of the most compelling arguments for supersymmetry and the energy desert.

By contrast, our effective theory description of the physics breaks down at relatively low scales, $``$ 10–100 TeV. There are straightforward UV completions of our non-linear sigma models into linear sigma models, but like the Standard Model, these themselves suffer from a (slightly reduced) “hierarchy problem”. We can instead consider supersymmetrizations of these linear sigma models above $``$ 10–100 TeV, or perhaps strongly coupled gauge dynamics or even low scale gravity models above this scale. Whatever this UV completion physics is, it completely decouples from the physics of EWSB, and is therefore irrelevant for upcoming collider experiments. As for gauge coupling unification, there have been a number of recent proposals on retaining this success at low energies (see for instance ), or recovering the correct prediction of the weak mixing angle from different group-theoretic structures . It would be interesting to pursue combining these ideas with our models, and some work along these lines is already in progress .

## 4 Acknowledgements

N.A-H. and A.G.C. would like to thank Howard Georgi for valuable comments and J.G.W. and T.G. would like to thank Takemichi Okui for useful discussions. J.G.W. and T.G. thank the Harvard theory group for the use of their facilities. A.G.C. is supported in part by the Department of Energy under grant number # DE-FG02-91ER-40676. N.A-H. is supported in part by the Department of Energy under Contracts DE-AC03-76SF00098, The National Science Foundation under grant PHY-95-14797, The Alfred P. Sloan foundation, and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation. T.G. is also supported by an NSERC fellowship.


format: text

text:
# Discovery of a Methane Dwarf from the IfA-Deep SurveyBased on observations obtained at the Subaru Telescope, Infrared Telescope Facility, and W. M. Keck Observatory.

## 1 Introduction

In the past few years, observational studies of substellar objects have been revolutionized, in large part from the advent of wide-field sky surveys, namely the 2-Micron All-Sky Survey (2MASS; Skrutskie et al., 1997), the Deep Near-Infrared Survey of the Southern Sky (DENIS; Epchtein et al., 1999), and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al., 2000). The coolest of the known substellar objects, the T dwarfs, are identified by absorption features from CH4, which becomes the dominant C-bearing molecule for $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}1300`$ K (Fegley & Lodders, 1996). The first T dwarf, GL 229B, was found as a companion to a nearby M star (Nakajima et al., 1995). Field T dwarfs have subsequently been found by SDSS (Strauss et al., 1999; Tsvetanov et al., 2000; Leggett et al., 2000; Geballe et al., 2002), 2MASS (Burgasser et al., 1999, 2000b, 2000a, 2002), and the NTT Deep Field (Cuby et al., 1999). To date, more than 20 of these objects are known (Burgasser, 2001). These objects are of great interest for numerous reasons, e.g., they are the lowest mass field objects known to date, and their physical properties are in many ways more akin to giant planets than to stars.

The spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of T dwarfs are distinct from all other known astronomical bodies, characterized by steeply rising flux in the optical from $``$0.8–1.0 µm due to the pressure-broadened K I doublet and a near-IR continuum ($`2.5\mathrm{\mu m}`$) showing strong absorption from H2O, CH4, and collisionally induced H2 opacity (Kirkpatrick et al., 1999; Burrows et al., 2000; Liebert et al., 2000; Burgasser et al., 2002; Geballe et al., 2002; Leggett et al., 2002). As a result, their broad-band colors are unique: their optical colors are extremely red up to $`J`$-band (1.25 µm), while near-IR colors are at least as blue as early-type stars, with the coolest objects being uniquely blue in the IR. Hence, pure infrared surveys such as 2MASS can identify the coolest T dwarfs, which have very strong CH4 absorption, but are insensitive to the warmer objects, which have IR colors similar to main sequence stars, giant stars, and asteroids. In contrast, the far-red ($`i^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$) bands of the SDSS provide good sensitivity to T dwarfs over a wide range of temperture, including “L/T transition” objects (e.g. Leggett et al., 2000) where methane is just beginning to appear in the SEDs. In addition, the much higher etendue of current optical imagers compared to near-IR ones indicates that surveys in the far-red should be very scientifically fruitful. However, the relatively shallow depth of SDSS means that T dwarfs can be found only out to a distance of $``$30 pc.

The IfA-Deep Survey is an imaging survey being conducted as collaboration among many members of the Institute for Astronomy (IfA) at the University of Hawaii during 2001–2002. The project uses the prime-focus imager Suprime-Cam on the Subaru 8.2-m Telescope to map several blank fields in the far-red, the $`RIz^{}`$ bands (0.6–1.0 µm), with a total area of 2.5 sq. degrees. This survey will serve a variety of scientific programs, including weak lensing; searches for high-redshift supernovae, extremely red galaxies, and high-redshift clusters; galactic structure studies; and time-variability surveys. Since the survey is on-going, a complete description of its properties awaits a future paper. The baseline design calls for 10 nights of observing, reaching limiting 5$`\sigma `$ Vega magnitudes of $`R27.1`$, $`I26.5`$, and $`z^{}25.5`$ mags, though the final outcome will depend on the vicissitudes of telescope performance and weather. Here we present the discovery of the survey’s first T dwarf, “IfA 0230-Z1”, found from the first clear night of observations. We also examine the survey’s total T dwarf yield and its sensitivity to the vertical scale height of ultracool dwarfs once completed.

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 Subaru/Suprime-Cam: Optical Imaging

Optical imaging of the RA 02:30 hr field of the IfA-Deep Survey was obtained on 22 October 2001 UT using the prime focus imager Suprime-Cam (Miyazaki et al., 1998) on the Subaru 8.2-m Telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. The instrument is a mosaic of ten contiguous 2048$`\times `$4096 MIT/Lincoln Lab phase 2 and 3 CCDs with a total field of view of 34′$`\times `$27′. Conditions were photometric with 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8 FWHM seeing. We imaged two adjacent fields with a total area of 0.5 sq. degrees. Dithered $`R`$, $`I`$, $`z^{}`$-band observations were obtained with integrations of 560 s, 645 s, and 960 s per filter per pointing, respectively. The $`R`$ and $`I`$-band filter are Cousins filters. The $`z^{}`$ filter has an effective wavelength of 9195 Å and a FWHM of 1410 Å, very similar to that used by the SDSS survey (Fukugita et al., 1996).

Images were flattened, defringed, warped onto a common sky coordinate system, registered, and cleaned of cosmic rays. A preliminary photometric calibration of the $`R`$ and $`I`$ data was done using optical imaging previously obtained from smaller telescopes, which was calibrated with standards from Landolt (1992). For the $`z^{}`$ data, the preliminary calibration was done by comparing the $`R`$$`I`$$`z^{}`$ colors of stars in the Suprime-Cam data with the stellar locus. The latter was synthesized from the spectral energy distributions of Gunn & Stryker (1983) and the instrumental (filter+detector+atmosphere) transmission profiles. The resulting magnitudes in Table 1 are Vega-based.

### 2.2 IRTF/Spex and Keck/NIRSPEC: Infrared Follow-Up

We identified an extremely red stellar object at RA(2000) = 02:26:37.6, DEC(2000) = 00:51:54.7 in the $`I`$ and $`z^{}`$-band imaging. We refer to it as “IfA 0230-Z1” hereinafter. We obtained $`J`$ and $`H`$-band photometry on 06 November 2001 UT using the facility spectrograph Spex (Rayner et al., 1998). Spex has a slit-viewing camera, which uses a 512$`\times `$512 InSb array from Raytheon-SBRC and has a pixel scale of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$118 pixel-1. Conditions were photometric with 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$85 FWHM seeing. We obtained a total of 18 min and 10 min of integration at $`J`$ and $`H`$-band respectively. The Spex filters were purchased as part of the Mauna Kea Filter Consortium (Simons & Tokunaga, 2001; Tokunaga et al., 2001), and hence will be common to most of the current major infrared telescopes. We obtained images of the standard star SJ 9105 from Persson et al. (1998) immediately after observing IfA 0230-Z1. The resulting magnitudes in Table 1 are Vega-based.

We obtained an $`H`$-band spectrum of IfA 0230-Z1 on 10 November 2001 UT with the Keck Telescope and the facility spectrograph NIRSPEC (McLean et al., 1998). NIRSPEC uses a 1024$`\times `$1024 InSb ALADDIN detector from Raytheon-SBRC. A total of 30 min of integration was obtained in low resolution mode using the NIRSPEC-5 blocking filter and the 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$76 slit. Conditions were very non-photometric due to high thick cirrus. The object was dithered on the slit between exposures. The slit PA was set to 73$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6 east of north, so that the bright object 5$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$65 away (“object A”) was also on the slit for all the exposures. This provided a well-detected reference for registering the frames, and also a check on the resulting spectrophotometry (see below). A nearby A0V star was observed immediately afterward to calibrate the telluric and instrumental throughput.

The spectra were reduced using custom IDL scripts. The raw images on the NIRSPEC detector are curved in both the spectral and spatial directions. After subtracting a dark frame and dividing by a flat field, the individual images were cleaned of outlier pixels and rectified using traces of the arc lamp lines and the object spectra. Pairs of images taken at successive nods were subtracted to remove the sky emission. Images were then registered, shifted, and stacked to form a final 2-d mosaic of the spectrum. Extractions of 1-d spectra from the mosaic were done in a manner to produce reliable errors based on photon counting (Poisson) statistics. Details will be presented in a future paper. We divided the extracted spectra by the spectra of the A0V calibrator star and then multiplied by a 9720 K blackbody to restore the true shape of the continuum. Hydrogen absorption features in the calibrator were removed by linear interpolation. Wavelength calibration was done with spectra of argon and neon lamps.

The spectral resolution ($`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$) of the original extracted spectra was $`R=1640`$ (9.7 Å); many of the telluric OH emission lines are well-separated from each other. The resulting S/N was only $`13`$ pixel-1, so we smoothed the spectra with a 32 pixel FWHM Gaussian, with proper weighting accounting for the measurement errors, and rebinned the data to 2 pixels per spectral resolution element. The final spectra have a resolution of $`R=180`$ and are plotted in Figure 2.

## 3 Analysis

### 3.1 Spectral Classification

The $`I`$$`z^{}`$$`J`$-band colors of IfA 0230-Z1 are extremely red, while the $`JH`$ colors are relatively blue. Such colors are uniquely characteristic of T dwarfs. IfA 0230-Z1 has $`z^{}J=2.74\pm 0.15`$ mag (Vega), comparable to the reddest known T dwarfs. Its $`JH`$ color of 0.34$`\pm `$0.05 indicate a spectral type of T3–T4 (Leggett et al., 2002).

Figure 2 shows the Keck/NIRSPEC spectra of IfA 0230-Z1 and object A, which were observed simultaneously and reduced in an identical fashion. The spectrum of object A shows a featureless continuum $`f_\lambda \lambda ^{0.7}`$, consistent with the near-IR continuum of a low redshift galaxy (Mannucci et al., 2001). On the other hand, IfA 0230-Z1 shows a peak in its continuum around 1.58 µm. The continuum is depressed in the blue and the red around the peak, indicating the presence of H2O and CH4 absorption, respectively. Since object A’s spectrum does not show any such features, we conclude that these features are real and not due to, e.g., systematic errors in the spectrophotometry due to telluric water vapor.111We also observed IfA 0230-Z1 using Keck/NIRSPEC with the same instrumental configuration on the previous night for a total of 20 min. Conditions were more cloudy, and the resulting spectrum had much lower S/N. However, the overall shape of the object’s continuum was consistent with the higher S/N data in Figure 2, with a factor of $``$2 drop from the peak to the reddest wavelengths. Given its very low S/N, we chose not to use this data.

Figure 2 provides a comparison of IfA 0230-Z1 with local T dwarfs found in the SDSS and classified by Geballe et al. (2002). Based on this, we estimate a spectral type of T3–T4 for IfA 0230-Z1, which agrees with the typing from the broad-band colors alone. Since the shape of the $`H`$-band continuum is changing rapidly with spectral type, the uncertainty in the spectral typing is no more than 1 spectral subclass.

### 3.2 Distance

Only three T dwarfs have known distances, all of them companions to main sequence stars. Two of them, GL 229B and GL 570D, are much cooler objects than IfA 0230-Z1, with stronger CH4 absorption (Oppenheimer et al., 1995; Burgasser et al., 2000b). The third, GL 86B, appears to have modest methane absorption like IfA 0230-Z1, but its magnitudes and colors are poorly known (Els et al., 2001). Also, at fixed effective temperature/spectral type, younger (less massive) brown dwarfs will be more luminuous than older (more massive) ones. Hence, even if there were T3 dwarfs with known distances, their ages and hence their luminosities might be different than IfA 0230-Z1.

We estimate the distance as follows. For ages older than $``$0.1 Gyr, the radius of a brown dwarf is largely independent of its mass, to within about 30% (Burrows et al., 2001). Hence, $`LT_{\mathrm{eff}}^4`$. The bolometric correction at $`J`$-band is observed to be nearly constant for late-L and T dwarfs (Leggett et al., 2002) so the absolute $`J`$-band magnitude $`M_J`$ will scale directly with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$4. The difference in effective temperature between the late-L dwarfs and the late-T dwarf GL 229B is estimated to be quite small, perhaps only 1300 to 1000 K (Kirkpatrick et al., 2000; Burgasser et al., 2002). Adopting $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}1150`$ K for IfA 0230-Z1 means its $`J`$-band absolute magnitude will be $``$0.6 mag brighter than for GL 229B, which has $`M_J=15.51\pm 0.09`$ mag (Leggett et al., 1999). (Note that this is a differential comparison and does not depend on the absolute $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ scale adopted.) Hence, we estimate $`M_J14.9`$ mag for IfA 0230-Z1. This compares favorably to the two L8 dwarfs with known distances, which have an average $`M_J14.85`$ mag (Kirkpatrick et al., 2000). The resulting distance estimate for IfA 0230-Z1 is 45 pc, with an error of $``$20% ($`\pm `$9 pc) based on the uncertainties in the radius and absolute $`J`$-band magnitude.

### 3.3 Survey Predictions: Number Counts and Scale Height of Ultracool Dwarfs

The 0230 field of the IfA-Deep survey is contained with the SDSS Early Data Release (Stoughton et al., 2002), but IfA 0230-Z1 is $``$0.6 mags too faint in $`z^{}`$ to be detected by SDSS. With the detection of only a single object, any discussion of the T dwarf number counts at magnitudes fainter than SDSS is unwarranted. However, we can do a simple comparison. The first five T dwarfs from SDSS (Strauss et al., 1999; Tsvetanov et al., 2000; Leggett et al., 2000) were found in an area of 355 square degrees, with an effective limiting magnitude of $`z^{}19.5`$ mags (Vega). This means a surface density of about 1 per 70 square degrees. Our $`z^{}`$-band imaging of the 0230 field used in this paper reaches $``$4 mags deeper. Assuming a uniform volume density of T dwarfs, the expected surface density would be 1 per 0.3 square degrees, consistent with our discovery of a single object. The final IfA survey will go a factor of 3 deeper in flux and cover 5 times more area, suggesting a total yield of $``$40 T dwarfs. In comparison, 13 T dwarfs have been found from the $``$40% of the 2MASS data searched to date (Burgasser, 2001). This suggests the IfA survey will find a comparable number of T dwarfs as the entire 2MASS survey, albeit at a much larger average distance. However, these numbers should be taken with caution since they are based on the small sample of objects found to date by SDSS.

The completed IfA-Deep survey will be sensitive to T dwarfs out to $``$300 pc and L dwarfs out to $``$2 kpc. By probing several lines of sight, the survey should provide the first insights into the vertical scale height of ultracool dwarfs. To examine this aspect quantiatively, we consider a simple model of an exponential disk based on Wainscoat et al. (1992), with a radial scale length of 3.5 kpc and different vertical scale heights. For the L dwarfs, we adopt a local volume density of 0.01 pc-3 and assume an equal number of objects per spectral subclass (L0 to L8), consistent with the analyses of Reid et al. (1999) and Chabrier (2001). We adopt a local volume density for T dwarfs of 0.006 pc-3, using the Burgasser (2001) results for T5 to T8 dwarfs and then doubling it to account for early T dwarfs excluded from their 2MASS-selected sample. For the T dwarfs, we assume half the population is in early T dwarfs, with the rest equally divided into T6, T7, and T8 dwarfs. These inputs are very approximate, but consistent with the limited current observations. Finally, we compute $`z^{}`$-band absolute magnitudes using data from Kirkpatrick et al. (2000), Burgasser et al. (2000b), Els et al. (2001), and Leggett et al. (2002).

The differences in the observed counts of L and T dwarfs between our low and high galactic latitude fields will be very sensitive to the objects’ vertical scale height. The 0230 field lies at very high galactic latitude ($`b=53^{}`$), while other fields in the IfA-Deep Survey cover lower latitudes, down to the 0749 field at $`b=18^{}`$. For a canonical scale height of 325 pc, we predict the counts of L dwarfs in our high and low latitude fields will differ by a factor of 3. In contrast, if the scale height for ultracool objects is 100 pc, akin to the Population I constitutents of the Galactic disk (Cox, 2000), the difference between high and low latitude counts will be much larger, about a factor of 9. For the T dwarfs, the dependence on scale height has a different behavior, since our survey is only sensitive to much closer objects. For a 325 pc scale height, the low latitude field is predicted to have about 1.5 times as many T dwarfs as the high latitude field. However, in the case of a 100 pc scale height, there should be 3 times as many T dwarfs in the low latitude field compared to the high latitude field.

## 4 Conclusions

We have found a methane dwarf from the first night of observations for the IfA-Deep Survey. The object has very red optical colors and relatively blue near-IR colors. Its $`H`$-band spectrum shows strong H2O and modest CH4 absorption. The inferred spectral type is T3–T4. The majority of T dwarfs known to date have very deep CH4 absorption, so IfA 0230-Z1 is an interesting object in that it lies in a transition region of spectral type (and hence $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$), where methane is beginning to dominate the SED. The colors of early T-type objects, like IfA 0230-Z1, make them difficult to identify in pure near-IR surveys such as 2MASS but they are easily distinguished in our deep optical/far-red survey. Such objects are useful to understand the physics of ultracool atmospheres. Slightly warmer objects, the late L-dwarfs, have extremely red near-IR colors, which have been interpreted as being due to the role of dust. However, the very blue near-IR colors of T dwarfs are consistent with “clear”, i.e., dust-free, atmospheres (e.g. Tsuji, 2001).

With its high sensitivity in the far-red bands, the IfA-Deep survey will be an excellent means to search for brown dwarfs. Preliminary estimates based on the T dwarf discoveries by SDSS suggests the IfA survey will find a comparable number of T dwarfs as the 2MASS survey, albeit at a much larger average distance. The final survey will go $``$100 times fainter than SDSS, raising the possibility of finding isolated brown dwarfs much cooler than those found to date. Furthermore, the survey will be sensitive to T dwarfs out to $``$300 pc and L dwarfs out to $`2`$ kpc along several lines of sight, at galactic latitudes ranging from $`|b|2060^{}`$. This raises the possibility of providing the first insights into the vertical scale height of ultracool dwarfs, thereby telling us about their origin in a galactic context.

The authors wish to extend special thanks to those of Hawaiian ancestry on whose sacred mountain we are privileged to be guests. Without their generous hospitality, none of the observations presented herein would have been possible. It is a pleasure to acknowlege our collaborators on the IfA-Deep Survey: Herve Aussel, Ken Chambers, Pat Henry, Nick Kaiser, Eugene Magnier, Dave Sanders, and Alan Stockton. We are grateful for the support from the staffs of the Subaru Telescope, IRTF, and Keck Observatory, including Yutaka Komiyama, Ryusuke Ogasawara, Paul Hirsh, John Rayner, David Sprayberry, and Gary Puniwai. We thank Pete Challis, Alan Tokunaga and Jonathan Leong for help with the Subaru and Keck observations; Sungsoo Kim, Lisa Prato, and Ian McLean for providing the REDSPEC reduction software and documentation; and Mamori Doi for SDSS filter data. The Subaru Telescope is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. The IRTF is operated by the University of Hawaii under a contract from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). W.M. Keck Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation and is operated by Caltech, the University of California, and NASA. M. Liu is grateful for research support from the Beatrice Watson Parrent Fellowship at the University of Hawai‘i.