format: text

text:
# FERMILAB-PUB-02/019-T BUHEP-02-11 hep-ph/0202093 A Case Study in Dimensional Deconstruction

## 1. Introduction

There has been considerable interest lately in a new approach to model–building called “dimensional deconstruction”. There are two views of dimensional deconstruction. One, taken by Arkani-Hamed, Cohen and Georgi (ACG)  is that certain 4–dimensional theories look, for a range of energies, like higher dimensional theories in which the compactified extra dimensions are discretized on a periodic lattice. ACG used this resemblance—particularly the topological similarity between the $`d>4`$ components of gauge fields and certain 4–dimensional Goldstone bosons, and the absence of divergent counterterms for gauge–invariant operators of dimension greater than $`d`$—to deduce the form, strength, and sensitivity to high–scale physics of phenomenologically important operators such as mass terms and self–interactions. The other view is that of Hill and his collaborators  who assume the extra dimensions are real. They discretize the extra dimensions too—to regulate the theory. This “transverse lattice” theory is expected to be in the same universality class as the continuum theory. In the view of Hill et al. the connection between gauge field components and light Higgs scalars is also there—because they are the same thing—and so the allowed operators and their sensitivity to high scale physics are unambiguous. The consequences of both these views of dimensional deconstruction are similar, but they are not identical.

In this paper we study ACG’s view as they apply it to building a model of electroweak symmetry breaking with light composite Higgs bosons . In Ref. , ACG used dimensional deconstruction to deduce that certain pseudoGoldstone bosons (PGBs) acquire masses $`M`$ much less than the energy scale at which they are formed, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }4\pi f`$, where $`f`$ is the PGB decay constant. They argued further that the PGBs have negative mass–squared terms $`M_{}^2M^2`$, and that their quartic interaction is strong yet does not contribute to $`M^2`$. These ingredients—positive and negative squared masses $`M_+^2M_{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ and quartic couplings large compared to $`M_\pm ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$—are what’s required for a light composite Higgs whose vacuum expectation value $`vM`$ without fine tuning. These PGBs are prototypes for electroweak Higgs bosons whose mass and vev are naturally stabilized far below their binding–energy scale. This is important because it is the first natural scheme for electroweak symmetry breaking since the inventions of technicolor and supersymmetry over 20 years ago.

The simplest implementation of ACG’s dimensional deconstruction for light composite Higgses would be the naive one, which we dub the “principal of strict deconstruction”: For 4–dimensional theories which admit a higher dimensional interpretation, the form and strength of operators involving Goldstone bosons may be deduced from those for the corresponding $`d>4`$ components of gauge fields. ACG certainly do not adopt such a strict formulation for, as we will quickly see, it is incorrect. A more liberal formulation is needed. In this paper we explore how much we must liberalize it in order to achieve the goal of a naturally light composite Higgs.

To that end, this paper is frankly pedagogical, containing many details of the calculation of PGB masses and couplings. We hope that some will find the pedagogy useful. For them, and for the experts, our bottom line is this: Sometimes dimensional deconstruction works and sometimes it doesn’t. It often depends critically on the ultraviolet (UV) completion of the low–energy theory to which deconstruction is applied.

To make this more concrete, let us review the simplest example presented by ACG. In Ref.  they introduced a model containing $`N`$ strong gauge groups $`SU(n)_k`$ and $`N`$ weak ones $`SU(m)_k`$. The matter fields of this model are the massless chiral fermions

$$\psi _{Lk}(n,m,1),\psi _{Rk}(n,1,m)\mathrm{of}(SU(n)_k,SU(m)_k,SU(m)_{k+1})(k=1,2,\mathrm{},N).$$
(1)
The index $`k`$ is periodically identified with $`k+N`$, making this a “moose ring” model depicted in Fig. 1. For simplicity, all $`SU(n)`$ couplings $`g_s`$ are taken equal. They become strong at the high energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. All $`SU(m)`$ couplings $`g`$ are taken equal and assumed to be much less than $`g_s`$ at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This setup is the model’s UV completion. Let us see how it evolves as we descend to lower energies.

At $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the strong $`SU(n)`$ interactions cause the fermions to condense as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|\overline{\psi }_{Lk}\psi _{Rl}|\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }|\overline{\psi }_{Rk}\psi _{Ll}|\mathrm{\Omega }=\delta _{kl}\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(2)
where $`SU(m)`$ indices are not summed over and $`\mathrm{\Delta }4\pi f^3`$. In the limit $`g0`$, these fermions’ interactions have a large chiral symmetry, $`[SU(m)_LSU(m)_R]^N`$. The symmetry of the ground state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the diagonal vectorial subgroup, $`[SU(m)_V]^N`$. Therefore, there are $`N`$ sets of $`m^21`$ Goldstone bosons. They are the pseudoscalars $`\pi _k^a`$ that couple to the axial currents $`j_{5\mu ,k}^a=\overline{\psi }_{Rk}\gamma _\mu t_a\psi _{Rk}\overline{\psi }_{Lk}\gamma _\mu t_a\psi _{Lk}`$ with strength $`2f`$. Here, $`t_a`$ ($`a=1,2,\mathrm{},m^21`$) are generators in the fundamental representation of $`SU(m)`$ normalized to $`\text{Tr}(t_at_b)=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{ab}`$.

Below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, this theory is described by nonlinear sigma model fields $`U_k=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi _k^at_a/f)\mathrm{exp}(i\pi _k/f)`$ interacting with the weakly–coupled $`SU(m)_k`$ gauge fields $`A_{k\mu }=A_{k\mu }^at_a`$. The matter fields transform under the weak gauge groups as $`U_kW_kU_kW_{k+1}^{}`$. The effective Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{2g^2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\text{Tr}F_{k\mu \nu }F_k^{\mu \nu }+f^2\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\text{Tr}\left[(D_\mu U_k)^{}D^\mu U_k\right],$$
(3)
where $`D_\mu U_k=_\mu U_kiA_{k\mu }U_k+iU_kA_{k+1,\mu }`$. This low energy theory is described by the “condensed moose” in Fig. 2, with the link variables $`U_k`$ connecting sites $`k`$ and $`k+1`$. In this case, though not in all others, the mooses describing the high–energy and low–energy theories look the same.

Now, $`N1`$ of the gauge boson multiplets eat $`N1`$ sets of Goldstone bosons and acquire the masses $`_k=2gf\mathrm{sin}(k\pi /N)`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The massless gauge field $`A_\mu ^a=(A_{1\mu }^a+\mathrm{}+A_{N\mu }^a)/\sqrt{N}`$ couples with strength $`g/\sqrt{N}`$ and the uneaten Goldstone boson is $`\pi ^a=(\pi _1^a+\mathrm{}+\pi _N^a)/\sqrt{N}`$. In the unitary gauge, then, the 4–dimensional theory below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is described by uniform link variables $`U_k=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi ^at_a/\sqrt{N}f)`$ plus the massless and massive gauge fields.

Alternatively, at energies well below $`gf`$, this looks exactly like a 5–dimensional gauge theory. The fifth dimension is compactified on a discretized circle, represented exactly by the condensed moose, and there appears to be (for $`kN`$) a Kaluza–Klein tower of excitations of the massless gauge boson . The circumference of the circle is $`R=Na`$ where the lattice spacing $`a=1/gf`$ and the 5–dimensional gauge coupling is $`g_5^2=g^2a`$. The fifth component of the gauge boson $`A_5^a=g\pi ^a/\sqrt{N}`$. The geometrical connection is clear: $`\pi ^a`$ is the zero mode associated with rotation about the circle of $`SU(m)`$ groups in four dimensions and it corresponds to the fifth–dimensional gauge freedom associated with $`A_5^a`$.

But $`\pi ^a`$ is a pseudoGoldstone boson; the symmetry corresponding to it is explicitly broken by the weak $`SU(m)_k`$ interactions. What does dimensional deconstruction tells us about its mass? As ACG state, the higher dimensional gauge invariance forbids contributions to the mass of $`A_5`$ from energy scales greater than $`1/R`$, the inverse size of the fifth dimension. However, gauge invariance does allow a mass term for $`A_5`$ from $`|𝒲|^2`$ where $`𝒲=P\mathrm{exp}(i𝑑x_5A_5)`$ is the nontrivial Wilson loop around the fifth dimension. Since $`|𝒲|^2`$ is a nonlocal operator, it cannot be generated with a UV–divergent coefficient. On the discretized circle, $`𝒲=\text{Tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }_{k=1}^N\mathrm{exp}(iaA_{5k})]`$. In the 4–dimensional theory this is just the gauge–invariant $`\text{Tr}(U_1U_2\mathrm{}U_N)`$, and so this is what provides the mass for $`\pi ^a`$. Standard power counting indicates that the strength of $`|\text{Tr}(U_1U_2\mathrm{}U_N)|^2`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2f^2(g^2/16\pi ^2)^N`$. This is correct only for $`N=1`$. For $`N2`$ infrared singularities from the gauge boson masses at $`g0`$ overrule this power counting. ACG show this using the Coleman–Weinberg potential for $`\pi ^a`$. Contributions to the mass for $`N=2`$ come from the infrared to the ultraviolet regions, so that $`M^2g^4f^2\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/_B^2)g^4f^2\mathrm{log}(4\pi ^2N^2/g^2)`$ where $`_B^2g^2f^2/N^2`$ is a typical $`SU(m)`$ gauge boson mass; for $`N3`$ the IR region dominates and $`M^2g^4f^2`$.

The same dependence of the $`g^2`$–power on $`N`$ is readily seen by calculating $`M^2`$ from Dashen’s formula :

$$4f^2M^2\delta _{ab}=i^2\mathrm{\Omega }|[Q_\pi ^a,[Q_\pi ^b,_N]]|\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(4)
The $`\pi ^a`$ chiral symmetry breaking Hamiltonian $`_N`$ is depicted in Fig. 3 and is given by

$$_Ni^{N+1}g^{2N}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\left(\frac{1}{q^2}\right)^N\underset{\{c_l\}=1}{\overset{m^21}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[d^4x_ke^{iqx_k}g^{\mu _k\nu _k}T\right(j_{Lk\mu _k}^{c_k}(x_k)j_{Rk\nu _{k+1}}^{c_{k+1}}(0)\left)\right],$$
(5)
where $`j_{\lambda k\mu }^c=\overline{\psi }_{\lambda k}\gamma _\mu t_c\psi _{\lambda k}`$. The infrared divergence in this Hamiltonian may be cut off by replacing the massless gauge propagators by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{k=1}^N(q^2_k^2)^1`$. This “round–the–world” Hamiltonian corresponds to the effective Wilson–loop interaction

$$_W=\frac{C_Wg^4}{16\pi ^2}\underset{\{c_l\}=1}{\overset{m^21}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\text{Tr}\left(t_{c_k}U_kt_{c_{k+1}}U_k^{}\right)=\frac{C_Wg^4}{2^N16\pi ^2}\left|\text{Tr}\left(U_1U_2\mathrm{}U_N\right)\right|^2,$$
(6)
where $`C_W=𝒪(\mathrm{log}(4\pi ^2/g^2))`$ for $`N=2`$ and $`𝒪(1)`$ for $`N3`$.

If $`g^2/4\pi 10^2`$ in this moose ring model, the PGB is much lighter than its underlying compositeness scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Unfortunately, it cannot be used as a light composite Higgs with $`vM`$ because its quartic self–interactions are all too weak, either derivatively coupled and of order $`p^4/f^4g^8`$ for typical momentum $`pM`$, or induced directly by the weak gauge interactions as in $`_W`$ and of order $`g^4`$. This is in accord with what would be expected from dimensional deconstruction with its $`A_5`$ interpretation of $`\pi `$. To overcome this, ACG went to a 6–dimensional model with nonderivative PGB interactions. We consider this model in the rest of this paper.

In Section 2 we describe ACG’s model in which the condensed moose diagram is the discretization of a torus with $`SU(m)`$ gauge groups (weak coupling $`g`$) at $`N\times N`$ sites connected by nonlinear sigma model links. This corresponds to a 6–dimensional gauge model with the fifth and sixth dimensions compactified on the torus. In the 4–dimensional view of the model, the Higgs mechanism gives mass to all but one of the $`SU(m)`$ gauge multiplets, and several PGBs remain to get mass and mutually interact. Two of these correspond to the fifth and sixth components of the gauge field; the others do not have such simple topological interpretations. We discuss the expectations from strict dimensional deconstruction for the PGB masses and interactions and show, in particular, that the quartic interaction of the PGBs corresponding to $`A_{5,6}`$ should be $`𝒪(g^2/N^2)`$. This is not strong, but it may be large enough compared to $`M^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ to give $`vM\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We present a UV completion of this model consisting of a QCD–like dynamics of fermions with strong gauge interactions, just as ACG did for the 5–dimensional moose ring model. Then, for simplicity and for its phenomenological relevance , we restrict this model to $`N=2`$. It has five composite PGB multiplets. In Section 3 we estimate the PGB masses, identifying the structure of the leading $`g^4\mathrm{log}(1/g^2)`$ and $`g^4`$ contributions to $`M^2`$. The $`g^4\mathrm{log}(1/g^2)`$ terms are the same as in the moose ring model and their form is predicted by dimensional deconstruction. At that order, one of the PGBs not corresponding to $`A_{5,6}`$ remains massless. When $`𝒪(g^4)`$ terms are added, all five PGBs have comparable mass. In Section 4 we consider the nonderivative interactions of the PGBs. The interactions produced by the QCD–like UV completion have neither the form nor the strength of those predicted by dimensional deconstruction. In particular, the interactions are $`𝒪(g^4)`$, too weak to give a Higgs vev comparable to its mass. In Section 5 we study a UV completion that adds elementary scalars interacting strongly with themselves and the fermions. These induce the PGB strong self–interactions expected from dimensional deconstruction. However, for $`N=2`$ these scalar interactions also give large masses to all the PGBs. At the least, this changes the low–energy phenomenology of the model; at worst, it eliminates the candidates for a light composite Higgs. This difficulty of constructing light composite Higgs bosons seems to be general: The desired quartic interactions explicitly break the symmetries keeping the PGBs light. If the interactions are strong, the PGBs are not PGBs at all, and conversely. In any case, what happens depends critically on the condensed–moose theory’s UV completion.

## 2. The $`d=6`$ Toroidal Moose Model

In Ref. , ACG considered a model in which the condensed moose is the discretization of a torus with $`N\times N`$ sites; see Fig. 4. The sites are labeled by integers $`(k,l)`$ with $`k`$ identified with $`k+N`$ and $`l`$ with $`l+N`$. The weakly–coupled gauge groups $`SU(m)_{kl}`$ (all with coupling $`g`$) are located at the sites. The sites are linked by $`U_{kl}`$ and $`V_{kl}`$. They connect the sites $`(k,l)`$ to $`(k,l+1)`$ and to $`(k+1,l)`$, respectively, according to the $`SU(m)_{kl}`$ transformations

$$U_{kl}W_{kl}U_{kl}W_{k,l+1}^{},V_{kl}W_{kl}V_{kl}W_{k+1,l}^{}.$$
(7)
In the 4–dimensional theory, the link variables are nonlinear sigma model fields involving $`2N^2`$ $`SU(m)`$ adjoints of composite Goldstone bosons, $`\pi _{u,kl}=_a\pi _{u,kl}^at_a`$ and $`\pi _{v,kl}=_a\pi _{v,kl}^at_a`$:

$$U_{kl}=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi _{u,kl}/f),V_{kl}=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi _{v,kl}/f).$$
(8)
The $`SU(m)_{kl}`$ gauge bosons eat $`N^21`$ sets of GBs. From the covariant derivatives,

$`D^\mu U_{kl}=^\mu U_{kl}iA_{kl}^\mu U_{kl}+iU_{kl}A_{k,l+1}^\mu ,`$
$`D^\mu V_{kl}=^\mu V_{kl}iA_{kl}^\mu V_{kl}+iV_{kl}A_{k+1,l}^\mu ,`$ (9)
it is easy to determine that the mass eigenstate vector bosons and their masses are

$`B_{mn}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}\left(\zeta _{(mn)}^{}\right)_{(kl)}A_{kl}^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}e^{2i(km+ln)\pi /N}A_{kl}^\mu ,`$
$`_{B,mn}^2`$ $`=`$ $`4g^2f^2(\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{N}}\right)+\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{N}}\right))(m,n=1,\mathrm{},N).`$ (10)
The massless gauge boson is $`B_{NN}^\mu =N^1_{k,l}A_{kl}^\mu `$ and its coupling is $`g/N`$.

Among the $`N^2+1`$ leftover PGBs, two that are especially interesting are

$$\pi _u=\frac{1}{N}\underset{k,l}{}\pi _{u,kl},\pi _v=\frac{1}{N}\underset{k,l}{}\pi _{v,kl}.$$
(11)
These are the analogs of $`\pi `$ in the moose ring model, the zero modes associated with going around the torus in the $`U`$ and $`V`$–directions. ACG used these two PGBs as light composite Higgs multiplets.In Ref. , the weak groups are all $`SU(3)`$ except at the (1,1) site where the $`SU(2)U(1)`$ subgroup of $`SU(3)`$. This stratagem gets the putative Higgses out of the adjoint and into $`SU(2)`$ doublets where they belong. We shall not need to complicate our exposition by inserting a weak gauge defect at one site.

What do we expect for the masses and couplings of $`\pi _u`$ and $`\pi _v`$ from dimensional deconstruction? Viewing the condensed moose as the compactified fifth and sixth dimensions of a 6–dimensional gauge theory, the toroidal circumference once again is $`R=Na`$ with $`a=1/gf`$, the gauge coupling is $`g_6=ga`$, and the extra–dimensional gauge fields are $`A_{5,6}^a=g\pi _{u,v}^a/N`$. As in the moose ring model, dimensional deconstruction tells us that the leading contributions to their masses come from the Wilson loops around the fifth and sixth dimensions, e.g.,

$`|𝒲_5|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left|P\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle 𝑑x_5A_5}\right)\right|^2=\left|\text{Tr}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(iaA_{5kl}\right)\right\}\right|^2`$
$`=`$ $`\left|\text{Tr}\left\{\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(i\pi _u/Nf\right)\right]^N\right\}\right|^2=\left|\text{Tr}\left(U_{k1}\mathrm{}U_{kN}\right)\right|^2(k=1,\mathrm{},N).`$
Thus, as in the 5–dimensional model, we expect $`M_{\pi _{u,v}}^2g^4f^2\mathrm{log}(4\pi ^2N^2/g^2)`$ for $`N=2`$ and $`g^4f^2`$ for $`N3`$. The last equality in Eq. (2. The $`d=6`$ Toroidal Moose Model) assumes that $`\pi _{u,v}`$ are the only light PGBs, so that $`U_{kl}\mathrm{exp}(i\pi _u/Nf)`$ and $`V_{kl}\mathrm{exp}(i\pi _v/Nf)`$ at low energies. We shall see in the next section that this is not always true; the PGB masses depend on the nature of the theory’s UV completion.

The quartic self–interactions of the PGBs of the moose ring model are weak, at most $`𝒪(g^4)`$. In the 6–dimensional gauge model, dimensional deconstruction implies the existence of a stronger nonderivative interaction corresponding to

$$\text{Tr}F_{56}^2=\text{Tr}\left([A_5,A_6]^2\right)+\mathrm{}=\lambda \text{Tr}\left([\pi _u,\pi _v]^2\right)+\mathrm{}.$$
(13)
This interaction comes from the plaquette operators

$$_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{k,l}{}\lambda _{kl}f^4\text{Tr}\left(U_{kl}V_{k,l+1}U_{k+1,l}^{}V_{kl}^{}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(14)
Note that $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ does not contribute to the $`\pi _{u,v}`$ masses. The strength of the $`\text{Tr}([\pi _u,\pi _v]^2)`$ term is $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}_{k,l}\lambda _{kl}/N^4`$. The $`\lambda _{kl}`$ are fixed by dimensional deconstruction as follows:I thank Bill Bardeen for this argument. The 6–dimensional action including the nonderivative term in Eq. (13) is

$$d^4xa^2\frac{1}{g_6^2}\left[\underset{\mu ,\nu =1}{\overset{4}{}}F_{\mu \nu }^2+\frac{1}{a^4}\underset{k,l}{}\text{Tr}\left(U_{kl}V_{k,l+1}U_{k+1,l}^{}V_{kl}^{}\right)+\mathrm{mixed}\mathrm{terms}\right].$$
(15)
This gives $`\lambda _{kl}=(f^4g_6^2a^2)^1=g^2`$ and

$$\lambda =\frac{g^2}{2N^2}.$$
(16)
This may or may not be large enough to give a Higgs vev $`v`$ comparable to $`M_{\pi _{u,v}}`$, depending on the $`N`$–dependence of the Higgs masses.

The question of whether we can realize Eq. (16) is a major focus of this paper. We pose the question as follows: Can we construct a UV completion of the condensed moose that generates $`\text{Tr}([\pi _u,\pi _v]^2)`$ with strength $`𝒪(g^2/N^2)`$. Below we present a QCD–like UV completion. We find that this produces $`\lambda =𝒪(g^4)`$, and a vev of $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. In Section 5 we study a completion involving strongly interacting elementary scalars. It also fails to produce the desired hierarchy of $`M`$, $`v`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. While we have not proved that no UV completion exists which realizes the expectation of deconstruction, we expect this is so. In any event, the outcome of the low–energy Higgs theory depends crucially on its UV completion.

The simplest UV completion of this model, and the one we shall adopt in the next two sections, follows the strategy of the moose ring model and is based on QCD–like dynamics at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }4\pi f`$. Since the link variables involve $`2N^2`$ Goldstone bosons $`\pi _{u,kl}`$ and $`\pi _{v,kl}`$, we assume there are $`2N^2`$ strongly coupled $`SU(n)`$ gauge groups. These are located at sites $`(k,l+\frac{1}{2})`$ and $`(k+\frac{1}{2},l)`$ for $`k,l=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The strongly interacting massless fermions of this model are

$`\psi _{R(k,l+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})}(n,m,1),\psi _{L(k,l+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})}(n,1,m)\mathrm{of}(SU(n)_{k,l+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}},SU(m)_{kl},SU(m)_{k,l+1});`$
(17)
$`\psi _{R(k+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}},l)}(n,m,1),\psi _{L(k+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}},l)}(n,1,m)\mathrm{of}(SU(n)_{k+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}},l},SU(m)_{kl},SU(m)_{k+1,l}).`$
The UV–completed toroidal moose is shown in Fig. 5.

These fermions interactions are invariant under an $`[SU(m)_LSU(m)_R]^{2N^2}`$ chiral symmetry. Strong $`SU(n)`$ dynamics cause the condensates

$`\mathrm{\Omega }|\overline{\psi }_{L(k,l+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})}\psi _{R(m,n+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})}|\mathrm{\Omega }=\delta _{km}\delta _{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }4\pi f^3U_{kl}\delta _{km}\delta _{ln},`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }|\overline{\psi }_{L(k+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}},l)}\psi _{R(m+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}},n)}|\mathrm{\Omega }=\delta _{km}\delta _{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }4\pi f^3V_{kl}\delta _{km}\delta _{ln},`$ (18)
so that this symmetry breaks spontaneously to the diagonal $`[SU(m)_V]^{2N^2}`$ subgroup with the appearance of the $`\pi _{u,vkl}`$.

From now on, we restrict ourselves to the case $`N=2`$, partly for the phenomenological reason noted earlier and partly because of its simplicities and peculiarities. The full and condensed $`N=2`$ mooses are shown in Fig. 6. Note that every pair of adjacent lattice sites in the condensed moose are connected by two link variables, $`U_{kl}`$ and $`U_{k,l+1}`$ or $`V_{kl}`$ and $`V_{k+1,l}`$. The gauge boson masses are $`_{11}^2=8g^2f^2`$, $`_{12}^2=_{21}^2=4g^2f^2`$, and $`_{22}^2=0`$.

From Eq. (2. The $`d=6`$ Toroidal Moose Model) and the fermion $`SU(m)_{kl}`$ current,

$$j_{\mu ,kl}^a=j_{R\mu (k,l+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})}^a+j_{L\mu (k,l{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})}^a+j_{R\mu (k+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}},l)}^a+j_{L\mu (k{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}},l)}^a,$$
(19)
we read off the Goldstone boson eaten by $`B_{mn}^\mu `$:

$$\pi _{(mn)}^a=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left(\zeta _{(mn)}\right)_{(kl)}[\pi _{u,kl}^a\pi _{u,k,l1}^a+\pi _{v,kl}^a\pi _{v,k1,l}^a].$$
(20)
A convenient basis for the five physical GBs, whose masses and couplings we will estimate in the next two sections, is:

$`\pi _u`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\pi _{u,11}+\pi _{u,12}+\pi _{u,21}+\pi _{u,22}\right]`$
$`\pi _v`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\pi _{v,11}+\pi _{v,21}+\pi _{v,12}+\pi _{v,22}\right]`$
$`\pi _u^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\pi _{u,11}+\pi _{u,12}\pi _{u,21}\pi _{u,22}\right]`$
$`\pi _v^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\pi _{v,11}+\pi _{v,21}\pi _{v,12}\pi _{v,22}\right]`$
$`\pi _{uv}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\pi _{u,11}+\pi _{u,22}\pi _{u,12}\pi _{u,21}\left(\pi _{v,11}+\pi _{v,22}\pi _{v,12}\pi _{v,21}\right)\right].`$ (21)
The inverse transformations, which are useful when expanding plaquette interactions, are:

$`\pi _{u,11}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\pi _u+\pi _u^{}+\pi _{(21)}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\pi _{uv}^{}+\pi _{(11)}\right)\right]`$
$`\pi _{u,12}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\pi _u+\pi _u^{}\pi _{(21)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\pi _{uv}^{}+\pi _{(11)}\right)\right]`$
$`\pi _{u,21}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\pi _u\pi _u^{}+\pi _{(21)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\pi _{uv}^{}+\pi _{(11)}\right)\right]`$
$`\pi _{u,22}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\pi _u\pi _u^{}\pi _{(21)}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\pi _{uv}^{}+\pi _{(11)}\right)\right];`$
$`\pi _{v,11}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\pi _v+\pi _v^{}+\pi _{(12)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\pi _{uv}^{}\pi _{(11)}\right)\right]`$
$`\pi _{v,21}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\pi _v+\pi _v^{}\pi _{(12)}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\pi _{uv}^{}\pi _{(11)}\right)\right]`$
$`\pi _{v,12}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\pi _v\pi _v^{}+\pi _{(12)}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\pi _{uv}^{}\pi _{(11)}\right)\right]`$
$`\pi _{v,22}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\pi _v\pi _v^{}\pi _{(12)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\pi _{uv}^{}\pi _{(11)}\right)\right].`$
## 3. PseudoGoldstone Boson Masses

As in the moose ring model for $`N=2`$, the leading $`g^4\mathrm{log}(1/g^2)`$ contribution to the PGB masses comes from four distinct round–the–world graphs of the type shown in Fig. 7. The Hamiltonian, analogous to $`_N`$ in Eq. (5), is

$`_2`$ $``$ $`ig^4{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\left(\frac{1}{q^2}\right)^4d^4xd^4ye^{iq(x+y)}g^{\mu \nu }g^{\lambda \rho }}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{c,d=1}{\overset{m^21}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\{T\left(j_{R\mu (k,{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})}^c(x)j_{L\lambda (k,{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})}^d(0)\right)T\left(j_{R\rho (k,{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}})}^d(y)j_{L\nu (k,{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}})}^c(0)\right)+(k,l/2)(l/2,k)\}.`$
This corresponds to the effective interaction

$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_2f^4g^4}{32\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{g^2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{c,d=1}{\overset{m^21}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left\{\text{Tr}\left(t_cU_{kl}t_dU_{kl}^{}\right)\text{Tr}\left(t_cU_{k,l+1}^{}t_dU_{k,l+1}\right)+\left(U_{kl}V_{lk}\right)\right\}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_2f^4g^4}{128\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{g^2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left\{\left|\text{Tr}\left(U_{kl}U_{k,l+1}\right)\right|^2+(U_{kl}V_{lk})\right\}`$
where we will see that $`C_26`$.

We can estimate the IR–singular contributions to the PGB masses by the ancient method of current algebra combined with Weinberg’s spectral function sum rules . As in QCD, we assume the vector–axial vector spectral function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA}`$ can be saturated with with a massless pseudoscalar and a single vector and axial vector meson of masses $`M_{V,A}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and dimensionless couplings $`f_{V,A}`$ to the $`(V,A)`$ currents gives

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_V^2M_V^2}{q^2M_V^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_A^2M_A^2}{q^2M_A^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4f^2}{q^2}}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_V^2M_V^4}{q^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2M_V^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2M_A^2}}\right).`$
The second equality follows from the spectral function sum rules,

$`f_V^2M_V^2f_A^2M_A^2=4f^2;`$
$`f_V^2M_V^4f_A^2M_A^4=0.`$ (26)
We obtain

$$\left(M_{\pi _{u,v}}^2\right)_{g^4\mathrm{log}g^2}=\left(M_{\pi _{u,v}^{}}^2\right)_{g^4\mathrm{log}g^2}\frac{3mg^4f^2}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{4\pi ^2}{g^2}\right),$$
(27)
where we put $`\mathrm{log}(M_V^2/_B^2)=\mathrm{log}(4\pi ^2/g^2)`$ for a typical $`SU(m)`$ gauge mass of $`4g^2f^2`$ and used $`f_V^2M_V^2(M_A^2M_V^2)/4f^2=1`$ from Eq. (3. PseudoGoldstone Boson Masses). We read off

$$C_26.$$
(28)
All mixing terms vanish and $`(M_{\pi _{uv}^{}}^2)_{g^4\mathrm{log}g^2}=0`$. In other words, dimensional deconstruction again predicts the origin but not the magnitude of the leading contribution to the $`\pi _{u,v}`$ masses. It fails to mention the $`\pi _{u,v}^{}`$ and the fact that they are degenerate with $`\pi _{u,v}`$. It completely misses the $`\pi _{uv}^{}`$ and its masslessness at order $`g^4\mathrm{log}(1/g^2)`$.

All the PGBs, including $`\pi _{u,v}^{}`$, get masses from 16 one–loop graphs of the type shown in Fig. 8. Because of infrared singularities, these are actually $`𝒪(g^4)`$. They are represented by the $`SU(m)`$–invariant effective Hamiltonian

$`_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_4g^4f^4}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\{\left|\text{Tr}\left(U_{kl}V_{k,l+1}U_{k+1,l}^{}V_{kl}^{}\right)\right|^2`$
$`+\left|\text{Tr}\left(U_{kl}V_{k,l+1}U_{k+1,l+1}V_{kl}^{}\right)\right|^2+\left|\text{Tr}\left(U_{kl}V_{k,l+1}U_{k+1,l}^{}V_{k+1,l}\right)\right|^2`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}\left|\text{Tr}\left(U_{kl}V_{k,l+1}U_{k+1,l+1}V_{k+1,l}\right)\right|^2+\frac{1}{2}\left|\text{Tr}\left(U_{kl}V_{k+1,l+1}^{}U_{k+1,l+1}V_{kl}^{}\right)\right|^2\}.`$
Note that these terms are invariant under the interchanges $`U_{kl}V_{lk}`$. The first four terms in $`_4`$ are the sum of the squares of the plaquette interaction $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ in Eq. (14). The other terms are allowed by gauge invariance for $`N=2`$ and have exactly the same strength.<sup>§</sup><sup>§</sup>§This $`N=2`$ case is special. In an $`N\times N`$ toroidal lattice with periodic boundaries, there are $`N^2`$ plaquettes for $`N3`$. We will discuss in Section 4 why the linear plaquette interaction does not appear.

The PGB masses from $`_4`$ are easily evaluated. There is no mixing in the sum of the terms and we find:

$`\left(M_{\pi _u}^2\right)_{g^4}=\left(M_{\pi _v}^2\right)_{g^4}={\displaystyle \frac{mC_4g^4f^2}{2\pi ^2}},`$
$`\left(M_{\pi _u^{}}^2\right)_{g^4}=\left(M_{\pi _v^{}}^2\right)_{g^4}={\displaystyle \frac{3mC_4g^4f^2}{4\pi ^2}},`$
$`\left(M_{\pi _{uv}^{}}^2\right)_{g^4}={\displaystyle \frac{2mC_4g^4f^2}{\pi ^2}}.`$ (30)
We estimate $`C_4`$ by replacing the four massless gauge propagators in Fig. 8 by the mass eigenstate product $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{k,l}(q^2_{kl}^2)^1`$ and using the spectral functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{VA}`$:

$$C_4\frac{3}{16}\left(1\mathrm{log}2\right).$$
(31)
It is easy to see from Eq. (3. PseudoGoldstone Boson Masses) where the ratio $`(M_{\pi _{u,v}}^2)_{g^4}:(M_{\pi _{u,v}^{}}^2)_{g^4}:(M_{\pi _{uv}^{}}^2)_{g^4}=8:12:32`$ comes from. Just put all PGB fields but the one in question to zero and expand to $`𝒪((\pi )^2)`$.

Let us estimate the ratio of the two contributions to $`M_{\pi _u}^2`$. We take $`g^2/4\pi =1/30`$. Then $`(M_{\pi _u}^2)_{g^4\mathrm{log}g^2}/(M_{\pi _u}^2)_{g^4}152(M_{\pi _{uv}}^2)_{g^4}/(M_{\pi _u}^2)_{g^4}`$; i.e., all the PGBs have roughly the same mass. With this QCD–like UV completion of the toroidal moose model, then, there are five sets of light PGBs and a very rich phenomenology. This does not change if there is a gauge defect with $`SU(2)U(1)`$ at site $`(1,1)`$. Nor does the situation change qualitatively for $`N>2`$. In sum, the particle spectrum of the 6–dimensional gauge theory is not a very good representation of the 4–dimensional one at energies well below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$

## 4. PseudoGoldstone Self–Interactions

Deconstructing the 6–dimensional toroidal moose led us to expect the nonderivative interaction $`\text{Tr}([\pi _u,\pi _v])^2`$ with strength $`g^2/N^2`$. It was to come from the lattice version of $`g_6^2\text{Tr}F_{56}^2`$, namely, $`g^2_{k,l}\text{Tr}(U_{kl}V_{k,l+1}U_{k+1,l}V_{kl}^{})`$. Instead, our QCD–style UV completion of the model produced the squared, not the linear, plaquette interaction $`_4`$. Its $`𝒪(g^4)`$ coupling is too weak to produce a light composite Higgs vev much less than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The linear interaction does not appear for any $`N`$ because this theory is invariant under reflection of any and all fermion fields $`\psi _{L,R}`$ and, hence, under the reflection of any $`U_{kl}`$ and any $`V_{kl}`$. This by itself does not preclude the existence of $`\text{Tr}([\pi _u,\pi _v])^2`$, which indeed appears in the expansion of $`|\text{Tr}(UVU^{}V^{})|^2`$. However, for the phenomenologically interesting case of $`N=2`$, even this interaction and many others like it are absent, at least to $`𝒪(g^4)`$. This follows from the invariance of $`_4`$ under the replacement of any single $`U_{kl}`$ by $`U_{k,l+1}^{}`$ or $`V_{kl}`$ by $`V_{k+1,l}^{}`$. Thus, interactions arising from $`_4`$ are invariant under any one replacement of the type

$`\pi _u\pm \pi _u^{}\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi _{uv}^{}`$ $``$ $`\left(\pi _u\pm \pi _u^{}\right)\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi _{uv}^{};`$
$`\pi _v\pm \pi _v^{}\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi _{uv}^{}`$ $``$ $`\left(\pi _v\pm \pi _v^{}\right)\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi _{uv}^{}.`$ (32)
Eight $`\text{Tr}([\pi _u,\pi _v])^2`$ terms in $`_4`$ are canceled by eight $`\text{Tr}([\pi _u,\pi _v][\pm \pi _u,\pi _v])`$ terms.

This is not to say that all quartic PGB interactions in $`_4`$ vanish; they don’t. But for our UV completion of the $`N=2`$ toroidal moose, the term expected from dimensional deconstruction just isn’t there. This is an artifact of $`N=2`$; $`\text{Tr}([\pi _u,\pi _v])^2`$ does appear for higher $`N`$. But its coupling and that of all other nonderivative quartic interactions are still $`𝒪(g^4)`$. In the next section, we change the UV completion of the model to obtain stronger quartic interactions.

## 5. Stronger Interactions from Elementary Scalars

Linear plaquette interactions of any strength can be obtained by adding strongly–interacting scalar fields to the UV completion of the toroidal moose model.Andy Cohen and Howard Georgi separately mentioned to me that scalars can induce large plaquette interactions. The implementation used here was suggested to me by Sekhar Chivukula. It is similar in spirit to Elizabeth Simmons’ model in which the gauge bosons of extended technicolor are replaced by scalars . Elementary scalars by themselves make the model unnatural, so the original motivation of a naturally light composite Higgs is lost. I assume this can be fixed by supersymmetry. We introduce eight complex scalar field multiplets, $`\varphi _{u,kl}`$ and $`\varphi _{v,kl}`$ for $`k,l=1,2`$, all of which are strong $`SU(n)`$ singlets:

$`\varphi _{u,kl}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}}\varphi _{u,kl}^0+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{m^21}{}}}\varphi _{u,kl}^at_a(m,\overline{m})\mathrm{of}SU(m)_{kl}SU(m)_{k,l+1},`$
$`\varphi _{v,kl}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}}\varphi _{v,kl}^0+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{m^21}{}}}\varphi _{v,kl}^at_a(m,\overline{m})\mathrm{of}SU(m)_{kl}SU(m)_{k+1,l};`$ (33)
i.e., the $`\varphi _{u,kl}`$ transform like $`U_{kl}`$ and the $`\varphi _{v,kl}`$ like $`V_{kl}`$. To maintain equality of the weak $`SU(m)_{kl}`$ couplings $`g`$, we require all scalar interactions to be site–symmetric. We also impose symmetry under the interchanges $`\varphi _{u,kl}\varphi _{v,lk}`$. This preserves the $`U_{kl}V_{lk}`$ symmetry ACG needed to avoid large tree–level Higgs masses in their model with an $`SU(2)U(1)`$ gauge defect at site $`(1,1)`$ . These symmetries simplify our discussion; e.g., $`\varphi _{u,kl}`$ and $`\varphi _{v,kl}`$ have equal masses and Yukawa couplings. We assume the scalars are heavy, with mass $`M_\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the strong interaction scale of the fermions.

The Yukawa interactions consistent with gauge and other symmetries are

$$_Y=\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi (\overline{\psi }_{L(k,l+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})}\varphi _{u,kl}^{}\psi _{R(k,l+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})}+\overline{\psi }_{L(k+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}},l)}\varphi _{v,kl}^{}\psi _{R(k+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}},l)})+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.].$$
(34)
We assume $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{}=𝒪(1)`$. In the neglect of the weak $`SU(m)`$ gauge interactions, this theory is still invariant under $`[SU(m)_LSU(m)_R]^{2N^2}`$ with the symmetry extended to include the scalars.

When the strong $`SU(n)`$ interactions generate fermion condensates, the Yukawa interactions induce a vacuum expectation value for the scalars:

$$\sqrt{2}v_\varphi \mathrm{Re}(\varphi _{u,kl}^0)=\mathrm{Re}(\varphi _{v,kl}^0)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }{M_\varphi ^2}\overline{\psi }_{L(k,l+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})}\psi _{R(k,l+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})}f.$$
(35)
The chiral symmetry is again spontaneously broken to the diagonal $`[SU(m)_V]^{2N^2}`$, and the Goldstone bosons are

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{u,v,kl}^a=\frac{f\pi _{u,v,kl}^a+v_\varphi \mathrm{Im}(\varphi _{u,v,kl}^a)}{\sqrt{f^2+v_\varphi ^2}}.$$
(36)
Now, $`U_{kl}=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Pi }_{u,kl}/F)`$ and $`V_{kl}=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Pi }_{v,kl}/F)`$, where $`F=\sqrt{f^2+v_\varphi ^2}`$. The eaten and physical Goldstone bosons are the same combinations as in Eqs. (20,2. The $`d=6`$ Toroidal Moose Model). If the $`\varphi _{u,v}`$ have strong self–interactions, then so do the PGBs, both directly through the $`\varphi ^4`$ terms and through the plaquette interactions they induce. The price for this will be large PGB masses.

To generate $`\text{Tr}(U_{kl}V_{k,l+1}U_{k+1,l}^{}V_{kl}^{})`$ and the squared commutator expected from dimensional deconstruction, we suppose there exists the $`SU(m)_{kl}`$ gauge–invariant Hamiltonian

$$_{\varphi 1}=\rho _1\underset{k,l}{}\text{Tr}\left(\varphi _{u,kl}\varphi _{v,k,l+1}\varphi _{u,k+1,l}^{}\varphi _{v,kl}^{}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(37)
This produces quartic PGB interactions and, because there now need be no reflection symmetry to forbid it, it produces $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ in Eq. (14) with equal strengths $`\lambda _{kl}\rho _1`$. Deconstruction does not fix the magnitude of $`\rho _1`$, so we can take it to be anything we want. In particular, we can choose $`\rho _1=𝒪(g^2)`$ to make deconstruction’s prediction come true. If that gives a Higgs vev too much larger than its mass, we can just as well choose $`\rho _1=𝒪(1)`$.

In the $`N=2`$ model, however, there’s more. There can be interactions that induce the other plaquettes in $`_4`$, but linearized:

$`_{\varphi 2}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _2{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}\left[\text{Tr}\left(\varphi _{u,kl}\varphi _{v,k,l+1}\varphi _{u,k+1,l+1}\varphi _{v,kl}^{}\right)+\text{Tr}\left(\varphi _{u,kl}\varphi _{v,k,l+1}\varphi _{u,k+1,l}^{}\varphi _{v,k+1,l}\right)\right]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
$`_{\varphi 3}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\rho _3{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}\text{Tr}\left(\varphi _{u,kl}\varphi _{v,k,l+1}\varphi _{u,k+1,l+1}\varphi _{v,k+1,l}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
$`_{\varphi 4}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\rho _4{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}\text{Tr}\left(\varphi _{u,kl}\varphi _{v,k+1,l+1}^{}\varphi _{u,k+1,l+1}\varphi _{v,kl}^{}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$ (38)
There can also be “Wilson–loop” interactions that induce the terms in $`_2`$ and more:Quadratic Wilson–loop interactions can be forbidden by discrete symmetries of the type discussed below.

$`_{\varphi 5}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _5{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}[\left|\text{Tr}(\varphi _{u,kl}\varphi _{u,k,l+1})\right|^2+\left|\text{Tr}(\varphi _{v,kl}\varphi _{v,k+1,l})\right|^2]`$
$`_{\varphi 6}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,l,m,n}{}}[\rho _6\text{Tr}(\varphi _{u,kl}\varphi _{u,k,l+1})\text{Tr}(\varphi _{v,mn}^{}\varphi _{v,m+1,n}^{})+\mathrm{}]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (39)
Dimensional deconstruction does not fix the strengths of these interactions either, but absent a symmetry to prevent them, there is no reason for them to be much smaller than $`\rho _1`$.

However, if all these $`\varphi ^4`$ and plaquette interactions are present, they give large $`𝒪(\rho _iF^2)`$ squared masses to all the PGBs. What symmetries can we invoke to prevent them? Any new symmetry must respect the $`\varphi _{u,kl}\varphi _{v,lk}`$ interchange. The discrete phase transformations

$$\varphi _{u,vkl}\eta _{u,vkl}\varphi _{u,vkl};\eta _{u,kl}=\eta _{v,lk},|\eta _{u,vkl}|=1,$$
(40)
can forbid all the $`\varphi ^4`$ interactions, including $`_{\varphi 1}`$, except $`_{\varphi 4}`$ and $`_{\varphi 5}`$. Still, these two and the effective interactions they induce are sufficient to generate large $`M^2`$ terms for all the PGBs. This illustrates what seems to be a general rule: If the PGBs have strong self–interactions, then there is large explicit symmetry breaking and large PGB masses. If the masses are kept small, then the self–interactions are weak. In either case, the Higgs vev is always large, $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

Finally, we might well ask why we needed the fermions $`\psi _{L,R}`$ in this UV completion. Their only useful purpose was to induce the vev $`v_\varphi `$ for the scalars. Presumably this could have been accomplished by a negative $`M_\varphi ^2`$.

## 6. Conclusions

We conclude that, for the $`N=2`$ toroidal moose model at least, dimensional deconstruction is not a reliable guide to building a model of naturally light composite Higgs bosons. Deconstruction says the model has two light Higgs multiplets, $`\pi _u`$ and $`\pi _v`$, one of which can be given a negative mass–squared and vev much less than the compositeness scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by putting an $`SU(2)U(1)`$ gauge defect at one site. We studied whether a small mass and vev can be obtained with two straightforward UV completions of the model. For the QCD–like completion, we ended up with a model containing five light PGB multiplets and weak self–interactions so that any vev is of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For the model which adds strongly–interacting scalars, the five PGBs have masses and quartic couplings of $`𝒪(g)`$ to $`𝒪(1)`$, but any vev is still $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. We could choose $`\rho _1`$ large and all other scalar couplings small, but this is arbitrary, having nothing to do with deconstruction. Furthermore, since this model presumably requires supersymmetry to stabilize it, it does not seem much of an advance beyond earlier supersymmetric or technicolor models.

Finally, what about models with $`N3`$? With a QCD–like UV completion, all the PGBs have roughly the same $`M^2=𝒪(g^4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ and $`𝒪(g^4)`$ quartic couplings. Adding scalars with a strong interaction $`_{\varphi 1}`$ can induce $`_{\mathrm{}}`$, raising the mass of all PGBs except $`\pi _u`$ and $`\pi _v`$ and giving a largeish $`\text{Tr}([\pi _u,\pi _v])^2`$ coupling. The phase–invariant interaction $`_{\varphi 5}`$ has dimension $`2N`$. If we include it, its strength is naturally $`\rho _5/\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N4}`$ with $`\rho _51`$. It induces the squared Wilson–loop interaction $`_k[|\text{Tr}(U_{k1}\mathrm{}U_{kN})|^2+|\text{Tr}(V_{1k}\mathrm{}V_{Nk})|^2]`$ with strength $`\rho _5F^4(F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^{2N4}`$ and $`M_{\pi _{u,v}}^2\rho _5F^2(F/\mathrm{\Lambda })^{2N4}`$. Again, any Higgs vev is $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. If we exclude $`_{\varphi 5}`$, the squared Wilson–loop terms are generated with strength $`𝒪(g^4)`$ by the weak $`SU(m)`$ interactions. This, finally, gives a Higgs spectrum and couplings in accord with deconstruction. Supersymmetry at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is still needed to keep everything stabilized.

## Acknowledgements

I am especially indebted to Bill Bardeen, Sekhar Chivukula and Estia Eichten for many discussions and suggestions. I have also benefitted greatly from conversations with Nima Arkani-Hamed, Andy Cohen, Howard Georgi and Chris Hill. I am grateful to Fermilab and its Theory Group for a Frontier Fellowship which supported this research. It was also supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE–FG02–91ER40676. Finally, I thank Kevin Lynch for his valuable assistance in preparing the figures.


text:
# Untitled Document

Outlook for development of a scintielectron detector with improved energy resolution

S.V. Naydenov111 E-mail: naydenov@isc.kharkov.com, V.D. Ryzhikov222 E-mail: ryzhikov@stcri.kharkov.ua

Institute for Single Crystals, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,

60 Lenin Ave., 61001 Kharkov, Ukraine

Abstract

The development prospects have been considered of a scintillator-photodiode type detector with improved energy resolution attaining several per cent ($`R=12\%`$). The main contributions to the scintielectron detector energy resolution have been analyzed theoretically and their theoretical and physical limits determined. Experimental data have been presented on properties of scintillators of promise confirming the possibilities to minimize each of the resolution components. New ways are proposed to optimize the detector statistical contribution and the scintillator intrinsic resolution. A special role of the latter is outlined as the critical factor for the spectrometric possibilities (threshold) of scintillation-photodiode type detector with improved energy resolution at energy values $`E_\gamma `$ from 662 keV to 10 MeV.

Key words: scintillator-photodiode detector, energy resolution, intrinsic resolution.

Solid state detectors of scintillator-PMT (S-PMT) and scintillator-photodiode (S-PD) types are used widely along with semiconductor ones (SCD). In the latter type, the ionizing radiation is converted immediately into charge carriers while in scintielectron S-PMT and S-PD ones, a two-stage conversion takes place: first into optical photons (in the scintillator) and then into charge carriers (in the photoreceiver). The two-stage conversion causes energy losses and redistribution (dissipation), thus, in the case of small-volume detectors, the SCD sensitivity and energy resolution are one decimal order higher. An S-PD detector comprising a traditional CsJ(TI) scintillator of about 1sm3 volume and a silicon or HgI2 photodiode has the energy resolution $`5`$ to 6% at room temperature for 662 keV line .

While the energy conversion in scintillators has been considered comprehensively enough and several models have been proposed to date describing that process satisfactorily \[3-6\], there are no works considering possible correlation between integral characteristics of that process (quantum efficiency, conversion one, self-absorption, etc.) and energy resolution of the scintillator itself and of the scintillator-containing detection system as a whole; the same is true for theoretical consideration of the limiting energy resolution as a function of the scintillator parameters. This work is dedicated to theoretical consideration of that problem.

Let the energy resolution of a scintillator-photodiode combination be considered. Under Gaussian approximation of the electron signal output shape, the resolution $`R`$ is expressed as

$$R=\frac{FWHM}{MAX}=G\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\overline{E}},$$
(1)
where $`G=2\sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}2}2.36`$; $`\overline{E}`$ – the average energy; $`DE(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2=\overline{E^2}\overline{E}^2`$ – the spectral line dispersion. The dependence on the ionizing radiation energy $`E`$ is defined by the conversion efficiency of the system, $`\eta _p`$, in the peak corresponding to the photo-absorption in the scintillator:

$$E=\eta _PE_\gamma ;\overline{E}=\overline{\eta }_PE_\gamma ;\mathrm{\Delta }E=\mathrm{\Delta }E(E_\gamma ;\overline{\eta }_P,D\eta _P;\mathrm{}).$$
(2)
Strictly speaking, the physical conversion efficiencies of the system, the total one $`\eta _{PD}`$ (the energy yield of electrons per $`1MeV`$ of ionizing radiation) and the scintillation one $`\eta _{sc}`$ (the absolute light yield per $`1MeV`$), and thus the peak one rip $`\eta _p`$ (the fraction of the total efficiency corresponding to the photo-absorption peak of the spectral couple S-PD), are fluctuating being depended not only on the ionizing radiation energy but also on a multitude of physical and geometric parameters denoted in (2) as $`(\mathrm{})`$. That is why the broadening $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ (and thus the detector resolution) depends non-monotonously on its conversion efficiency $`R=R(\eta )`$, measured under the current regime. Nevertheless, it follows from experiments that correlations associated with the light yield improvement remain conserved and result mainly in an improved resolution $`R,`$ in particular, in high-uniform materials containing no activator.

Mathematically, the non-monotonous dependence $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\mathrm{\Delta }E(\eta )`$ is due to that the main parameters of Gaussian distribution, the mean value and dispersion, are explicitly independent from each other. The spectral line broadening is due not only to statistical contributions reflecting the relations of the detector resolution $`R`$ with its conversion efficiency $`\eta `$ but also to non-statistical fluctuations including those of geometric, dynamic, space-nonuniform competing quantities non-proportional to $`E_\gamma `$ which define the detector conversion yield. Under account for the above complication, the most effective way to determine the detector resolution is to discriminate the most important noise channels so that the corresponding fluctuations could be considered as independent ones and then to estimate each of those. The independent fluctuations are added vectorially and result in the following expression for the resolution (a $`\alpha `$ is the noise channel number)

$$R^2=\underset{\alpha }{}R_\alpha ^2.$$
(3)
It is quite natural to define the resolution of a scintielectron detector (as well as in )

$$R^2=R_{sc}^2+R_{st}^2+R_{pd}^2,$$
(4)
where $`R_{sc}`$ is the scintillator intrinsic resolution; $`R_{st},`$ statistical fluctuations of the energy carriers (photons and electrons); $`R_{pd},`$the noises of photodiode and electronic devices. Note that each of each contribution in (4) may in turn include partial components answering to specific broadening mechanisms. Since $`R_\alpha <R`$, it is necessary to provide a noise level of $`1`$ to $`2\%`$ for each component to attain an improved $`R`$ value of the same order.

First let conditions be determined allowing to neglect the photodiode noise $`R_{pd}`$. This contribution depends on the total number of noising electrons, $`N_{noise}`$ related to the useful electron signal, $`N`$:

$$R_{noise}\frac{N_{noise}}{N}=\frac{(\delta E)_{PD}}{\eta E_\gamma },$$
(5)
where $`(\delta E)_{PD}`$ is the corresponding energy spread; $`\eta `$ is meant to be the average value unless otherwise noted. It will be shown in what follows that a rather high efficiency of $`\eta 10\%`$ is necessary to compensate the detector statistical noise. From Eq. (5), we obtain that, the average energy being $`E_\gamma =0.6`$ to $`1MeV`$ and the useful signal $`N>30000`$ electrons, the resolution $`R_{pd}<12\%`$ is believed to be small if $`(\delta E)_{PD}`$ less then from $`l`$ to 2keV or $`N_{noise}(2÷3)10^2`$ (electrons). Such a low noise level is already attained in modern semiconductor photodiodes. For example, the silicon photodiode used as a SCD has a resolution of 5.5 keV for 122 keV line of 57Co and records reliably 5.5 keV from 55Fe . Thus, its resolution (expressed in relative units) for 137Cs line must be about $`R_{pd}G(5.5keV/122keV)0.8\%`$, i.e. less than 1%. In the high-energy spectrometry the photodiode noise is even lower, since $`NE_\gamma `$, in Eq. (5).

The statistical component $`R_{st}`$, includes independent contributions from quantum fluctuations of the number (or energy) of scintillation photons $`R_{st,sc}`$ and the photodiode photoelectrons $`R_{st,ph}`$ thus,

$$R_{ST}^2=R_{st,ph}^2+R_{st,el}^2.$$
(6)
In contrast to the cascade theory of statistic fluctuations in a scintillator-photomultiplier block , the statistical fluctuations of photons cannot be neglected in this case. In high-resolution scintielectron detectors, a nearly ideal energy transfer from the scintillation quanta to the photodiode electrons, therefore, their statistical contributions are of the same order of magnitude. Note that the $`R_{st,ph}`$ is often neglected also in S-PD detectors, but only at resolutions not less than $`4`$ to $`5\%`$.

Let a formula for $`R_{st}`$ be derived in a system with high conversion efficiency. Let us consider the conversion of a y quantum energy into a scintillation photon and then into an electronic signal as independent events in a Bernoulli check sequence. The statistical fluctuations of such a check series are described by binomial distribution  with the average value $`x=Np`$ and dispersion $`Dx=Np(lp)`$ where $`N`$ is the check number (the number of converted particles at $`100\%`$ efficiency); $`p`$, the event probability $`\eta _{sc}`$ and $`\eta `$, respectively). Thus,

$$R_{sc,\alpha }=G\sqrt{\frac{1\eta _\alpha }{\eta _\alpha N_\alpha }};N_\alpha =\frac{E_\gamma }{\epsilon _\alpha }$$
(7)
where $`\eta _\alpha =(\eta _{sc},\eta )`$; $`\epsilon _{sc}`$ and $`\epsilon _{el}`$ are mean energy of the scintillation quantum and that of the electron-hole pair formation in the semiconductor, respectively. The total statistical contribution is

$$R_{ST}=\frac{G}{\sqrt{\eta (E_\gamma /\epsilon _{el})}}\sqrt{1+K_Y(1\eta _{sc}\frac{\epsilon _{sc}+\epsilon _{el}}{\epsilon _{sc}})},$$
(8)
where an auxiliary $`K_Y=(\eta /\eta _{sc})(\epsilon _{sc}/\epsilon _{el})`$ is introduced (the effective collection coefficient). As a rule, $`\epsilon _{sc}=hc\mathrm{/}\lambda =1239\mathrm{/}\lambda (nm)2÷3eV`$; $`\epsilon _{el}(Si)=3.6eV`$. For detectors with low conversion yield, in the limiting case $`\eta \eta _{sc}1`$, the usual Poisson electron noise is obtained from Eq. (8):

$$R_{ST}R_{st,el}^{poisson}=\frac{G}{\sqrt{\eta (E_\gamma /\epsilon _{el})}}.$$
(9)
At $`\eta _{sc}>20\%`$ and $`\eta >10\%`$ , the difference between the binomial distribution and the Poisson one become substantial, the fluctuations of the former drop more sharply than those of the latter. This evidences that it is reasonable to enhance $`\eta `$ and $`\eta _{sc}`$ for maximum attenuation of the threshold statistical fluctuations. At the ideal energy conversion, $`\eta =`$ $`=\eta _{sc}=1`$ , the theoretical limit $`R_{st}(\eta =1)=0`$ is attained. An important peculiarity of the statistical resolution component following from (8) consists in its monotonous dependence on the conversion efficiencies. Other contributions to the total resolutions have been noted above to have not that property.

It is reasonable to transform (8) so that discriminate $`\eta _{sc}`$

$$R_{st}=\frac{G}{\sqrt{\eta _{sc}\left(E_\gamma /\epsilon _{el}\right)}}\sqrt{K_Y^1+\left(1\eta _{sc}\frac{\epsilon _{sc}+\epsilon _{el}}{\epsilon _{sc}}\right)}.$$
(10)
Solving this equation with respect to $`\eta _{sc}`$,

$$\eta _{sc}=\frac{6.91}{E_\gamma (keV)\lambda (nm)}\frac{1+K_Y^1}{\left[R_{ST}^2+\frac{6.91}{E_\gamma (keV)\lambda (nm)}\frac{\epsilon _{sc}+\epsilon _{el}}{\epsilon _{el}}\right]},$$
(11)
we obtain an expression defining the scintillation efficiency necessary to attain a pre-specified level of statistical noise in detector having the efficiency $`K_Y`$ defining the matching between the scintillator and the photodiode ($`0<K_Y<l`$).

When the spectral and optical match is ideal, $`K_Y`$ depends mainly on the light collection coefficient $`K_c`$, so $`(\epsilon _{el}/\epsilon _{sc})K_YK_c`$. At a good light collection ($`K_c`$ to $`0.8`$), the statistical resolution of a ”red” scintillator ($`\lambda =640nm`$) on moderate energy ($`E_\gamma =662keV`$) can be believed to be small under condition following from equation (11)

$$R_{ST}(E_\gamma <1MeV)<1\%\eta _{sc}20÷30\%.$$
(12)
This level is $`\eta >1015\%`$ for the total conversion efficiency. In high energy range ($`E_\gamma >10MeV`$), the statistical resolution drops sharply in a spontaneous way, since $`R_{st}1\mathrm{/}\sqrt{E_\gamma }`$ . The statistical noise on the 662 keV line is $`2`$ to 4% in best scintillator assemblies . At $`E_\gamma 10MeV`$, that contribution will be reduced 3 to 4 times to a value less than 1% .

To conclude, it is seen that the statistical contribution can be minimized essentially in a detector having a high scintillation efficiency and a good-matched S-PD combination. The first condition is of high necessity to optimize another contribution being in our opinion the most important one, namely, the scintillator intrinsic energy resolution. As a rule, non-statistical (non-Gaussian) fluctuations are included therein. The intrinsic resolution $`R_{sc}`$ is a natural improvement limit for the total resolution of a detector, since it includes as a rule contributions remaining substantial (or independent of $`E_\gamma )`$ at any energies of the ionizing radiation, including high ones. The $`R_{SC}`$ would be a decisive part in detectors with improved spectrometric resolution $`R<1`$ to 2%).

The scintillator intrinsic resolution was noted to be of importance in the studies of alkali halide scintillators (\[3-6\] and other works) where it comes as a rule to $`4`$ or $`5\%`$ . In the case of heavy oxides (BGO and CWO), the intrinsic resolution of rather small samples ($`V1`$ to $`10sm^3`$) is negligible due to the proportionality of their light yield . The ZnSe(Te) scintillator intrinsic resolution is $`R_{sc}=3.26\%`$ at the S-PD couple resolution $`R=5.37\%`$ on the 137Cs line . The RbGd2Br7:Ce scintillator with proportional light yield seems to exhibit a rather good intrinsic resolution : the total resolution on the same 662 keV line was $`R=4.1\%`$ , while the PMT statistical noise being the main contribution in that case was $`R_{sc}=3.5\%`$. There are no experimental data on the intrinsic resolution of new scintillators with high values of atomic numbers $`Z`$ and $`\eta _{sc}`$.

The intrinsic resolution consists of several components. Some of those depend on $`E_\gamma `$, dropping monotonously as a rule. There are, however, components fully or almost independent of the ionizing radiation energy if the latter is absorbed completely in the crystal (the leak resolution or boundary effects being neglected). Among those threshold contributions, it is just the scintillator substance resolution $`R_{sub}`$ and the light collection non-uniformity one $`R_{lc}`$ that are the most substantial ones, that is, at an accuracy to small corrections,

$$R_{sc}^2=R_{sub}^2+R_{lc}^2+o(1/\eta _{sc}E_\gamma ).$$
(13)
The substance resolution $`R_{sub}`$ depends mainly on the light yield non-proportionality, $`E_{sc}=\eta _{sc}(E_\gamma )E_\gamma `$, $`\eta _{sc}const`$. The light collection contribution, $`R_{lc}`$ , is defined in first turn by the geometric and dynamic fluctuations in a scintillator of a specific shape, the optical parameters in the crystal volume and at its boundary being fixed. The space non-uniformity of scintillations, $`\eta _{sc}=\eta _{sc}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ can be of importance, in particular, in activated compounds.

There are scintillators with very low $`R_{sub}`$ the light yield proportionality is their specific feature. The tungstates mentioned above belong to those. So, CdWO4 has an $`R_{sub}`$ about 0.3% (as discriminated from the total resolution) at the crystal volume $`V200sm^3`$ and $`R_{sub}0.03`$ to $`0.08\%`$ at $`V3`$ to $`20sm^3`$ . ZnSe(Te) with nonlinearity factor $`\eta (5.9keV)/\eta (662keV)=85\%`$ and $`\eta (16.6keV)/\eta (662keV)=90\%`$ has a rather good linearity at the physical light yield $`L=28000ph/MeV`$ . Some complex oxides are somewhat worse, e.g., Lu3Al5O12:Ce has the light yield $`L=13000ph/MeV`$ and $`\eta (16.6keV)/\eta (662keV)=76\%`$ while for LuA1O3:Ce the linearity worsens $`\eta (16.6keV)/`$ $`/\eta (662keV)=71\%`$ as the light yield drops ($`L=11000ph/MeV`$) . For comparison sake, the non-linearity of NaJ(TI) is about $`80\%`$ at a light yield $`L=40000ph/MeV`$. Nevertheless, those compounds, as well as other modern scintillators, e.g., those of LSO(Ce) type , may turn out to be of promise to attain a high energy resolution of scintillators, including both total and intrinsic one, as their scintillation characteristics will be further improved.

To minimize the substance contribution, a material should be developed having a high scintillation efficiency, homogeneity and, most likely, an intrinsic emission. Since the conversion process in scintillator is a multi-factor process, there is no functional relation between $`\eta `$, and $`R_{sub}`$ . The above examples show, however, that there is such a correlation for materials of the same type while it is not confirmed when materials of substantially different types are compared. For example, CdWO4 has the light yield 30 % related to CsJ(TI) but their total resolutions are comparable  due to that the intrinsic resolution of the former is much lower (2 to 3 decimal orders).

The space uniformity of scintillations should be high enough along with their proportionality ($`R_{sub,nonprop}1\%`$). Corresponding residual resolution (as defined in )

$$R_{sub,in}=2.36\frac{\sqrt{<\eta _{sc}^2><\eta _{sc}>^2}}{<\eta _{sc}>};<\mathrm{}>=\frac{1}{V}\underset{V_{sc}}{}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\mathrm{}$$
(14)
is small, $`R_{sub,in}<1\%`$, under condition that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _{sc})<10^4\eta _{sc}`$. That condition will be met in systems where fluctuations are very small, e.g., in a regular lattice. The known method to compensate the $`\eta _{sc}`$ non-uniformity in an activated scintillator by providing the light collection non-uniformity (the multiplicative noise of $`\eta _{sc}K_c\eta _{sc}K_c`$ value) is unsuitable in this case because it results in a definite drop of $`K_c`$ and thus of the conversion efficiency that is inadmissible in high-resolution detectors.

Now let geometric fluctuations of light collection, $`R_{lc}`$, be considered. At the uniform scintillation distribution $`R_{lc}`$ is due only to the dispersion of light collection coefficient and, in spite of the non-statistical fluctuation character, has the following form under Gaussian approximation:

$$R_\sigma =2.36\frac{\sqrt{<K_c^2><K_c>^2}}{<K_c>}.$$
(15)
The light collection parameters are expressed via the invariant distribution function $`\rho `$ for the totality of light beams being reflected from boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ . The averaged $`K_c`$ is

$$<K_c>=1\underset{\mathrm{\Phi }_{catch}}{}\rho (\phi _1,\phi _2)𝑑\phi _1𝑑\phi _2;\stackrel{}{r}(\phi )\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(16)
where the integration is made over the part of the system phase space $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{capt}`$ corresponding to the captured light.

The light collection resolution, as well as the coefficient $`K_c`$ itself, depends on the scintillator geometry and optical properties (the light reflection, refraction and absorption). When the light collection is ideal, the reflection at the boundary is the mirror one and there is no light absorption in the scintillator, the resolution is minimum, $`R_{lc}<1\%`$. Strictly speaking, the theoretical limit $`R_{lc}=0`$ is attained in this case, that is confirmed by several authors (see e.g. ). The reason for the ideal character of mirror light collection is established within the frame of stochastic (geometry-dynamic) light collection theory . In this case, a dynamic model presenting a billiard with elastic reflections at the boundaries, is considered instead of the detector. There are no fluctuations for mirror light collection, $`<K_c>^2`$ = $`<K_c>^2`$, due to the unique (deterministic) character of the light propagation. Therefore,

$$R_{lc,mirror}(\kappa =0)0.$$
(17)
(where $`\kappa `$ is absorption coefficient). There is a quite different situation when the absorption takes place. It results not only in reduced scintillation intensity but also causes a light collection non-uniformity. The effective light collection with a high resolution is attained in small-size and/or optically transparent scintillators. It follows from experiments, numerical calculations and general considerations that the light collection resolution is small enough ($`R_{lc}1\%`$) or a regular geometry scintillator of a volume $`V`$about $`10sm^3`$ (e.g., for a cylinder with $`HD3sm`$) and having mirror-reflecting boundaries (with mirror efficiency $`\rho _m0.8`$ or $`0.9`$ ) under condition that

$$R_{lc}<1\%\kappa d0.1(10dl),$$
(18)
where $`\kappa `$ is the optical absorption coefficient; $`l=\kappa ^1`$ , the light beam free path in the scintillator; $`d`$ – the crystal characteristic dimension. A good light collection, $`K_c60\%`$, is attained under the same conditions.

To conclude, a convenient determination of $`R_{sc}`$ from the total one, $`R`$, measured at several $`E_\gamma `$ values is described in what follows. Since $`R_{st}^2=const/E_\gamma `$ and the total $`R`$ is determined from (4), we obtain at known

$$R_{sc}=\sqrt{\frac{R_1^2E_{1\gamma }R_2^2E_{2\gamma }}{E_{1\gamma }E_{2\gamma }}R_{PD}^2},$$
(19)
For small-size samples where $`R_{lc}1\%`$, $`R_{sc}R_{sub}`$. The scintillator intrinsic resolution is minimum for detectors spectral line a pronounced Gaussian character of, i.e. $`R^21/E_\gamma `$.

For medium energies, $`E_\gamma <1MeV`$, the energy resolution limit depends on the statistical fluctuation level. To attain $`R_{st}`$ to $`2\%`$, it is necessary to use scintillators with high conversion efficiency ($`\eta _{sc}20\%`$) and good matching (both spectral and optical) between S and PD as well as to optimize the light collection coefficient so that the total efficiency $`\eta `$ would be not less than $`10\%`$.

For the high energy range, $`E_\gamma >10MeV`$, it is the intrinsic energy resolution of the scintillator that is decisive. It consists of several components which are in general competing with each other. First of all, scintillators are to be sought having a vanishing resolution of the material independent of the crystal dimensions and being defined by the light yield non-proportionality due to the emission mechanism itself. Moreover, the scintillator size (volume) is to be restricted to minimize non-uniformity in the light collection and in the optical absorption factor. This may result in reduced intrinsic resolution caused by the light yield non-proportionality associated with the ionizing radiation incomplete absorption (leaks) and by increased contribution from microscale inhomogenates (in activated scintillators). The leak resolution can be avoided if radiation weakening of y emission in the scintillator is complete and the secondary electron path length therein is small enough, thus, under conditions ($`2`$ to $`3`$) $`l_r<d`$ , where $`l_rZ^p`$ ($`p=2÷5`$) is the scintillator radiation length, and $`10l_e<d`$, where $`l_e0.45E(MeV)/\rho _{sub}(g/sm^3)`$ is the electron free path in the scintillator. A conclusion of importance follows therefrom that the intrinsic $`R_{sc}`$ will be reduced considerably in scintillators with high $`Z`$ and $`\eta `$ values.

It is of interest to compare experimental data on energy resolution at $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$-particles and $`\gamma `$-radiation recording using a modern scintillator with high conversion efficiency (ZnSe-Te). The energy conversion for $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$-radiation takes place in essentially the same range (for $`\alpha `$ in somewhat higher one). The conversion efficiency, however, is close to 100% for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ particles while it is less than 1% for $`\gamma `$-radiation, the scintillator thickness being about $`1mm`$ in all cases. That is, the complete energy absorption, light conversion optimization and low statistical noise are simulated correctly for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ particles in a high conversion efficiency scintillator. In contrast, as y radiation is detected, the photoreceiver and electronic noises are of substantial importance due to low conversion efficiency. It is seen (Fig.l) that the experimental result for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ detection using a S-PD couple coincides essentially with SCD data being several per cent ($`4`$ to $`6\%`$).

ZnSe has a low transparency, thus, it is unreasonable to use the large crystals for high-efficiency absorption of y radiation. The energy resolution of thin scintillators on 662 keV line (Fig.l), however, confirms, under account for the predominant part of PD and electronic noises, the attainability of a high energy resolution using an S-PD combination using a homogeneous scintilla-tor transparent against intrinsic emission and showing a high conversion efficiency as well as a low intrinsic resolution. To compare (see Fig. 2), the energy resolution for standard CsJ(Tl) is less than 6% on 662 keV line and less than 5% on 1.33 MeV one at room temperature.

In high energy range, $`E_\gamma >10MeV`$, all requirements concerning the medium energy range remain valid. Under account for the obligatory high detector efficiency, i.e., the high-energy radiation absorption coefficient of several tens per cent, it is just high intrinsic resolution, homogeneity and light collection optimization that become the decisive factors. The resolution reduction down to 1% and less is illustrated (Fig. 3) for lead tungstate detectors (GeV energy range). In practice, this means that non-activated scintillators of high $`Z`$ and small radiation length should be used having the emission in ”red” spectral range providing a better matching with the photodiode. Note that in the high energy range the same absorption efficiency is attained at the BGO or PWO scintillator volume 8 times smaller than that of CsJ or NaJ. The improvement of the conversion efficiency for high atomic number scintillators is here the main problem.

The theoretical analysis allows to conclude that it is quite possible physically to attain sufficiently low values of $`R_{PD}`$, $`R_{ST}`$ and $`R_{SC}`$ components of S-PD detector energy resolution (except for low-energy range where the statistical contribution predominates and increases sharply as the radiation energy drops). Thus, it is possible to attain $`R=1\%`$ to $`2\%`$ . The necessary conditions for such a small spectral line broadening (as compared to existing scintielectron detectors having $`R=4`$ to $`5\%`$) are a considerably improved conversion efficiency (by a factor 1.5 to 2) and scintillation one (by a factor of 2 to 3, i.e., up to $`\eta _{sc}2530\%`$). It is necessary also to search for optically transparent homogeneous scintillators close to intrinsic emission exhibiting a low non-proportionality of light yield (small intrinsic resolution) and high atomic number.

The modern advances in production of high $`Z`$ crystals exceeding CsJ(TI) in light yield  evidence the practical solvability of that task.

References

 Gramsch, K. Lynn, M. Weber et al., Nucl. Instr.Meth., A 311, 529 (1992).

 J.M. Markakis, Nucl. Instr.Meth., A 263, 499 (1988).

 G.G. Kelly, P.K. Bell, R.C. Davis, N.H. Lazar, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., NS-3, 57 (1956).

 P. Iredale, Nucl. Instr.Meth., 11, 340 (1961).

 C.D. Zerby, A. Meyer, R.B. Murray, Nucl. Instr.and Meth., 12, 115 (1961).

 R. Hill, A.J.L. Collinson, Proc. Phys. Soc., 85, 1067 (1965).

 W. Zimermann, Rev. Scient. lustrum., 32, 1063 (1961).

 J.M. Markakis, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., NS-35, 356 (1988).

 H. Grossman, Nucl. Instr. and Meth., A 295, 400 (1990).

 E. Bretenberger, Progr.Nucl.Phys., 10, 16 (1955).

 W. Feller, An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, vol. l. New York (1970).

 L.V. Atroshchenko, L.P. Gal’chinetskii, V.D. Ryzhikov et al., Scintillator Crystals and Detectors of Ionizing Radiations on Their Base, Naukova Dumka, Kyiv (1998) \[in Russian\].

 P. Dorenbos, M. Marsman, C.W.E. van Eijk, in: Inorganic Scintillators and their Applications, ed. by P. Dorenbos, Proc. Intern. Conf., Delft, the Netherlands (1995).

 M. Balcerzyk, W. Klamra, M. Moszynski et al., Intern. Conf. SCINT-99, Book of Abstracts, August 16-20, 1999, Moscow, p.125

 O. Guillot-Noel, J.C. van’t Spijker, P. Dorenbos et al., Intern. Conf. SCINT-99, Book of Abstracts, August 16-20, 1999, Moscow, p.108.

 Yu.A. Tsirlin, M.E. Globus, E.P. Sysoeva, Optimization of Detecting Gamma-Irradiation by Scintillation Crystals, Energoatomizdat, Moscow (1991) \[in Russian\].

 M. Balcerzyk, W. Klamra, M. Kapusta, SCINT-99, Book of Abstracts, August 16-20, 1999, Moscow, p.61; W.W. Moses, M.J. Weber, S.E. Derenzo et al., Intern. Conf. SCINT-97, Book of Abstracts, September 22-25, 1997, Shangai, China, p. 358.

 M. Moszynski, M. Kapusta, D. Wolski et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 45, 472 (1998).

 S. Burachas, Yu. Zdesenko, V. Ryzhikov et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth., A 369, 164 (1992).

 S.V. Naydenov, V.V.Yanovsky, Functional Materials, 7, \# 4, 743 (2000); 8, # 1, 27; \# 2, 226 (2001).

 W.W. Moses, M.J. Weber, S.E. Derenzo, P. Perry, P. Berdahl, L. Schwarz, U. Sasum, L.A. Boatner, Intern. Conf. SCINT-97, September 22-25, 1997, Shangai, China, p. 358; J.C. van’t Spijker, P. Dorenbos, C.P. Allier, C.W.E.van’t Eijk, A.E.Ettema, Ibidem, Shangai, China, p. 311.

 E.V.D. van Loef, P.Dorenbos, C.W.E. van Eijk, Appl. Phys. Lett., 77, # 10, 1467 (2000); Appl. Phys. Lett., 79, # 10, 1573 (2001).

Fig. l. Spectrum of 137Cs conversion electrons recorded by an S-PMT couple (a) and an S-PD one (b). Scintillator ZnSe(Te), $`1mm`$ thick.

Fig. 2. 137Cs (a) and 60Co (b) radiation spectra detected S-PD (CsJ(TI) and PD S3590); scintillator size: a) $`10\mathrm{x}10\mathrm{x}10mm^3`$, b) $`38\mathrm{x}38\mathrm{x}38mm^3`$.

Fig. 3. $`100GeV`$ radiation spectra detected by S-PD assembly with a PbWO4 scintillator and PD S3590 potodiode. Resolution less than $`0.75\%`$ in both cases.