text:
# The Effective Lagrangian in the Randall-Sundrum Model and Electroweak Physics

## 1 Introduction

Theories with extra dimensions might explain some of the outstanding problems of particle physics . In particular some of these models could shed light on why gravity is so much weaker than the other three forces. One of the prominent proposals of this sort is the Randall-Sundrum (RS) model , where the strong warping of the extra dimensions introduces an exponential hierarchy between the Planck and the weak scales. There are several variants of this model, depending on whether the extra dimension is finite (RS1) or infinite (RS2), and whether or not the gauge fields are in the bulk. Each of these models can be interesting for slightly different motivations. Here we will concentrate on the case where the extra dimension is finite (so that it solves the hierarchy problem), and where the gauge fields are in the bulk. This model could possibly yield unification of gauge couplings , and also may have a simple physical origin  via the AdS/CFT correspondence . The holographic dual of this theory should be a broken conformal field theory, which becomes strongly interacting at low energies and spontaneously breaks the weakly gauged $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ electroweak symmetries. Thus this holographic dual of the RS model with the gauge bosons in the bulk is in essence a technicolor-like theory, where the broken CFT replaces the technicolor group , and the KK modes of the gauge fields and gravitons would be interpreted as bound states of the CFT resulting in the technimesons, analogously to the glueball states appearing in the case of ordinary AdS/CFT . In QCD-like technicolor theories the new strong interactions introduced to solve the hierarchy problem always generate large contributions to the electroweak precision observables , in particular there are large contributions to the $`S`$-parameter. However the phenomenological importance of (non-QCD-like) approximate conformal symmetry has long been emphasized in the technicolor literature , where the slowly running gauge coupling is refered to as “walking”. The difficulty of estimating the value of $`S`$ in these walking theories is also well known  since it involves non-perturbative, non-supersymmetric gauge dynamics near a non-trivial fixed point. Therefore it is interesting to find out whether there is a non-vanishing $`S`$-parameter in the RS model since it provides us with the first approximately conformal (“walking”) model of electroweak symmetry breaking where such a calculation can be performed. However, in the 5D gravity theory (that is the RS model) the $`S`$ parameter should not be the effect of quantum loops, but rather a purely tree-level effect. The purpose of this paper is to carefully match the RS model to an effective 4D description and find the value of $`S`$ in the effective Lagrangian describing electroweak physics in this model. Indeed we find that the wave functions of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons are distorted due to the Higgs expectation values on the TeV brane, resulting in different wave function and mass renormalizations of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$. The physical consequence of this effect is non-vanishing $`S`$ and $`T`$ parameters, which we calculate. Our method of finding the low-energy effective 4D theory is general, and we expect that similar effects will appear in any extra dimensional theory where the SM gauge bosons have non-uniform wavefunctions. In addition to these parameters the well-known effect of the four-fermion operators generated by the exchange of Kaluza-Klein gauge bosons has to be included. The coefficient of these four-fermion operators has been called $`V`$ in . We use a global fit to the most recent precision electroweak data to place a bound on the size of the extra dimension in the RS model, and find bounds that are somewhat stronger than those previously obtained.

The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we review the results on gauge propagators and wave functions in the RS model that will be necessary to calculate the effective Lagrangian. In Section 3, we match the higher dimensional theory to an effective 4D Lagrangian, and evaluate the $`S`$ and $`T`$ parameters. In Section 4 we first calculate the $`V`$ parameter and then use these results for constraining the parameters of the RS model via a global fit to the electroweak precision measurements. We conclude in Section 5, while Appendix A contains the detailed expressions of the electroweak observables in terms of $`S,T`$ and $`V`$ and the SM input and experimental values used for our fit.

## 2 The Gauge Propagator and Wavefunctions in the RS Model

In this section we review the results on gauge propagators and wave functions in the RS model \[4,12-17\] that will be necessary for us to calculate the effective low-energy theory.

The 5D metric of the RS model can be written in the form

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{R}{z}\right)^2\left(dz^2+\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu \right),$$
(1)
for $`R<z<R^{}`$. Here $`R`$ represents the radius of curvature of the AdS space. There is a Planck brane at $`z=R`$ and a TeV brane at $`z=R^{}`$ which cutoff the space with $`\text{ZZ}_2`$ orbifold boundary conditions.

The 5D action for the bulk $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge bosons is given by

$`S_{5D}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle _R^R^{}}dz\sqrt{G}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_5^2}}G^{MP}G^{NQ}W_{MN}^aW_{PQ}^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}G^{MP}G^{NQ}B_{MN}B_{PQ}`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (zR^{})}{\sqrt{G_{55}}}}G^{MP}(W_M^1W_P^1+W_M^2W_P^2+(W_M^3B_M)(W_P^3B_P))],`$
where the $`\delta `$-function mass terms arise from a localized Higgs expectation value $`H=v/2`$. Since $`\delta `$-functions on boundaries require special care, we will take the definition of this term to be the limit of having the Higgs localized at a point which approaches the brane. This amounts to a factor of two difference in the definition of $`v^2`$ from taking the Higgs directly on the brane, but has the advantage of making comparison with the calculation via the AdS/CFT correspondence simpler .

We define the weak mixing angle through $`s`$, which represents the bare value of the $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$:

$`s={\displaystyle \frac{g_5^{}}{\sqrt{g_5^2+g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}},c={\displaystyle \frac{g_5}{\sqrt{g_5^2+g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}}.`$ (3)
We can diagonalize the action by performing a field redefinition:

$`W_\mu ^3=c^2Z_\mu +A_\mu ,B_\mu =s^2Z_\mu +A_\mu .`$ (4)
The reason behind this unusual form for the field redefintions is that none of the fields $`W^3,B,Z`$ or $`A`$ are canonically normalized, but it is equivalent to the standard redefinition in the canonical basis. In our new basis we obtain the Lagrangian:

$`S_{5D}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle _R^R^{}}dz{\displaystyle \frac{R}{z}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_5^2}}W_{MN}^+W^{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}})F_{MN}F^{MN}`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(g_5^2+g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}}Z_{MN}Z^{MN}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{4}}\delta (zR^{}){\displaystyle \frac{R}{z}}W_M^+W^M+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{8}}\delta (zR^{}){\displaystyle \frac{R}{z}}Z_MZ^M]`$
In the $`R_\xi `$ gauge where $`W_5=Z_5=A_5=0`$, the propagator for the bulk $`W`$ gauge boson is given by ,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_W^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`(\eta ^{\mu \nu }q^\mu q^\nu /q^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_W(q,z,z^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }_{W,\xi }q^\mu q^\nu /q^2,`$ (6)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{W,\xi }=\mathrm{\Delta }_W(q/\sqrt{\xi },z,z^{}),`$ (7)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_W`$ satisfies

$`g_5^2{\displaystyle \frac{z}{R}}\delta (zz^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(_z^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}_z+q^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}v^2g_5^2\delta (zR^{}){\displaystyle \frac{R}{R^{}}})\mathrm{\Delta }_W(q,z,z^{})`$ (8)
with boundary conditions

$`_z\mathrm{\Delta }_W|_{z=R}=0,_z\mathrm{\Delta }_W|_{z=R^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_5^2v^2{\displaystyle \frac{R}{R^{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_W.`$ (9)
$`W^5`$ also propagates in a generic $`R_\xi `$ gauge, but the coupling to fermions is pseudoscalar, and vanishes at zero fermion mass. In addition, because $`W^5`$ is fixed to be odd under the $`\text{ZZ}_2`$ (consider the $`\text{ZZ}_2`$ behavior of $`W_{5\mu }`$), it vanishes on the TeV brane and hence does not couple to matter on the TeV brane. For our purposes we will therefore be able to neglect $`W^5`$.

For $`R(z,z^{})R^{}`$ the Green’s function can be constructed by patching together the solutions of the corresponding homogeneous equation with $`z<z^{}`$ and $`z>z^{}`$, which we refer to as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{W<}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{W>}`$ respectively:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_W=\theta (zz^{})\mathrm{\Delta }_{W>}+\theta (z^{}z)\mathrm{\Delta }_{W<}`$ (10)
Plugging the patched solution into Eq. (8) for $`z^{}R`$, $`z^{}R^{}`$ yields:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{W<}|_{z=z^{}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{W>}|_{z=z^{}}`$
$`_z(\mathrm{\Delta }_{W>}\mathrm{\Delta }_{W<})|_{z=z^{}}=g_5^2{\displaystyle \frac{z^{}}{R}}`$ (11)
Setting $`z^{}=R^{}`$ in Eq. (11) and combining with Eq. (9) yields the IR ($`z=R^{}`$) boundary condition for the propagator with a source on the TeV brane:

$`_z\mathrm{\Delta }_{W<}|_{z=z^{}=R^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{R^{}}{R}}g_5^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_5^2v^2{\displaystyle \frac{R}{R^{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{W<}|_{z=z^{}=R^{}}`$ (12)
The solution has the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_W(q,R^{},z)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{W<}|_{z^{}=R^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{z}{R}}\left(\alpha _WJ_1(qz)+\beta _WY_1(qz)\right)`$ (13)
where the coefficients are given by

$$\alpha _W=\frac{4g_5^2R^{}Y_0(qR)}{D(q)},\beta _W=\frac{4g_5^2R^{}J_0(qR)}{D(q)}$$
(14)
and the denominator is

$$D(q)=J_0(qR)\left(4qR^{}Y_0(qR^{})+g_5^2v^2RY_1(qR^{})\right)Y_0(qR)\left(4qR^{}J_0(qR^{})+g_5^2v^2RJ_1(qR^{})\right).$$
(15)
Setting $`z=R^{}`$ gives the propagator on the TeV brane. The coefficients $`\alpha _W`$ and $`\beta _W`$ have the same denominators, and the roots of these denominators determine the 4D poles of the propagator (when the numerators do not vanish concurrently). The $`n^{th}`$ pole corresponds to the $`n^{th}`$ $`W`$ eigenmode , $`W^{(n)}`$, with mass $`M_W^{(n)}`$. We will label the lowest mode by $`n=0`$. It is this lowest mode that we would like to identify with the observed $`W`$ gauge boson, so we will write $`M_W^{(0)}=M_W`$. For $`vR1`$ this is an “almost zero mode” and we can find the pole analytically by expanding the Bessel functions in $`qR<qR^{}1`$. To leading order in the coupling the pole is at:

$`M_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_5^2}{R\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R^2v^2}{4R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}`$ (16)
The bulk $`Z`$ propagator is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_W`$ by taking $`g_5^2g_5^2+g_5^2`$, which gives:

$`M_Z^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_5^2+g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{R\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R^2v^2}{4R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}`$ (17)
Similarly we can find the wavefunction, $`\psi _W^{(n)}`$, of the $`n^{th}`$ eigenmode. The wavefunctions are given by:

$`\psi _W^{(n)}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{z}{R^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_1(M_W^{(n)}z)Y_0(M_W^{(n)}R)Y_1(M_W^{(n)}z)J_0(M_W^{(n)}R)}{J_1(M_W^{(n)}R^{})Y_0(M_W^{(n)}R)Y_1(M_W^{(n)}R^{})J_0(M_W^{(n)}R)}}`$ (18)
where we have normalized the wavefunction by $`\psi ^{(n)}(R^{})=1`$.

For $`vR1`$ the $`n=0`$ mode is an “almost zero mode” and we can find a simple expression for the wavefunction by expanding the Bessel functions in $`M_WR1`$, $`M_WR^{}1`$. To order $`M_W^2`$ we obtain:

$`\psi _W^{(0)}(z)`$ $``$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{M_W^2}{4}}\left[z^2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}2z^2\mathrm{log}(z/R)+2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)\right].`$ (19)
The wavefunction for the $`Z`$ can be obtained by $`M_WM_Z`$, while the photon remains massless and its wavefunction is simply $`\psi _\gamma ^{(0)}(z)=1`$.

## 3 The 4D Effective Lagrangian of the RS Model

Given the wavefunctions we can find the 4D effective action by integrating the 5D action over $`z`$. We want to match the RS calculation onto an effective 4D theory. After integrating out the Higgs, the most general Lagrangian for the electroweak gauge bosons (with operators of dimension 4 or less) can be written as :

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}Z_WW_{\mu \nu }^+W^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(g^2+g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}}Z_ZZ_{\mu \nu }Z^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4e^2}}Z_\gamma F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{sc}{2e^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\gamma Z}^{}F_{\mu \nu }Z^{\mu \nu }`$ (20)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{WW}(0)\right)W_\mu ^+W^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(g^2+g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ZZ}(0)\right)Z_\mu Z^\mu `$
where $`Z_\gamma 1\mathrm{\Pi }_{\gamma \gamma }^{}`$, $`Z_W1\mathrm{\Pi }_{WW}^{}`$, $`Z_Z1\mathrm{\Pi }_{ZZ}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\gamma Z}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{WW}(0)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ZZ}(0)`$ incorporate the effects of new (oblique) physics beyond the standard model. Although we are only doing a tree-level matching calculation we have adopted the standard notation for vacuum polarizations to represent the wavefunction renormalizations that arise from classical 5D physics. With our conventions $`f246`$ GeV.

Using the 5D wavefunctions (to second order in masses) we can easily calculate the coefficients of the kinetic and mass terms:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}Z_\gamma `$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}\right){\displaystyle _R^R^{}}|\psi _\gamma ^{(0)}(z)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{Rdz}{z}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}\right)R\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}Z_W`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^2}}{\displaystyle _R^R^{}}|\psi _W^{(0)}(z)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{Rdz}{z}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^2}}R\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2+g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}Z_Z`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^2+g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}{\displaystyle _R^R^{}}|\psi _Z^{(0)}(z)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{Rdz}{z}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^2+g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}R\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}^{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\gamma Z}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{WW}(0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{4R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^2}}{\displaystyle _R^R^{}}|_z\psi _W^{(0)}(z)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{Rdz}{z}}={\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{4R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}v^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(g^2+g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ZZ}(0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{4R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^2+g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}{\displaystyle _R^R^{}}|_z\psi _Z^{(0)}(z)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{Rdz}{z}}={\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{4R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}v^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}(0)`$ (21)
where

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{R^2v^2}{8R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}\left(2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}R^2}{\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_5^2R^3v^4}{64R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}}}\left(2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}R^2}{\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)^2}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{M_W^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(g_5^2+g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})R^3v^4}{64R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}}}\left(2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}R^2}{\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)^2}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^{}.`$ (22)
Here we have used the leading order results for $`M_W`$ and $`M_Z`$, Eqs. (16). The corrections to the wave function renormalization $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}^{}`$ arise from integrating the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ wave functions, while the contributions to the mass renormalizations $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}`$ appear from the 5D kinetic terms of $`W`$ and $`Z`$, where a $`z`$ derivative acts on the wave functions.

Even though there are no $`1/(16\pi ^2)`$ loop suppression factors, for $`vR1`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}`$ can be treated as small perturbations of the leading terms. Thus a simple convention is to identify the 4D bare gauge couplings with the leading terms and the $`Z_i1`$ with the subleading $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}`$ terms. This is a convenient choice because we want to separate out the new 5D physics from radiative corrections by loops of standard model particles. It also ensures that there are no additional corrections to the couplings of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ to quarks and leptons. In other words, with this convention the mixing angles determined by diagonalizing the 5D action are identical to the bare 4D mixing angles:

$`s={\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{\sqrt{g^2+g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}},c={\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{g^2+g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}}.`$ (23)
It is these mixing angles that appear in the quark and lepton gauge couplings. Other conventions are possible, but physical observables are independent of convention. Thus in our convention

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}\right)R\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^2}}R\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2+g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^2+g_5^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}R\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R).`$ (24)
Using this identification of the 4D couplings we then obtain for the other parameters of the effective Lagrangian:

$`Z_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`1,Z_W=1g^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^{},Z_Z=1(g^2+g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}^{},`$
$`f^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}v^2,\mathrm{\Pi }_{WW}(0)=g^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0),\mathrm{\Pi }_{ZZ}(0)=(g^2+g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}(0).`$ (25)
Note that since the photon is massless it receives no 5D renormalization, so $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\gamma \gamma }=e^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{QQ}=0`$. Furthermore since this is a tree-level calculation no new $`Z\gamma `$ mixing can be induced so $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3Q}=0`$. We can now use the standard definitions for the oblique parameters:

$`S`$ $``$ $`16\pi (\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{3Q}^{})`$
$`T`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{s^2c^2M_Z^2}}(\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0)\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}(0))`$
$`U`$ $``$ $`16\pi (\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}^{})`$ (26)
Plugging in our results yields:

$`S`$ $``$ $`4\pi f^2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)`$
$`T`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2c^2}}f^2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R),`$
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (27)
where we have dropped terms which are suppressed by powers of $`\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)`$. Note that both $`S`$ and $`T`$ are negative and large (i.e. $`\mathrm{log}`$ enhanced relative to a naive dimensional analysis estimate).

We can check these results by examining the poles of the propagators directly by expanding the denominators for $`qR1`$. At leading order the $`W`$ pole is determined by

$`0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}v^2+q^2{\displaystyle \frac{R\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)}{g_5^2}}.`$ (28)
At next to leading order we must keep terms that are suppressed by $`q^2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ relative to the leading terms. The pole is then determined by

$`0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}v^2+q^2{\displaystyle \frac{R\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)}{g_5^2}}+Aq^2+Bq^4`$ (29)
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^2v^2}{16R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}\left(2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)+R^2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right),`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{4g_5^2}}\left((R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+R^2)\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)+R^2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right).`$ (30)
Thus to sub-leading order the pole is at:

$`M_W^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_5^2}{R\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R^2v^2}{4R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_5^4R^2v^4}{64R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)^3}}(2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)^22R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)+R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$ (31)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2f^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^4f^4}{64}}(2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)^22R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)+R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}),`$
which agrees at this order with the effective Lagrangian calculation

$`M_W^2g^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{4}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0)\right)\left(1+g^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^{}\right)g^2{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{4}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^{}\right).`$ (32)
## 4 The Comparison of RS to Data

In addition to the oblique corrections we have described, once quarks and leptons are included in the theory with couplings to the bulk gauge bosons they will have additional four-fermion interactions beyond those in the standard model due to the exchange of the gauge boson resonances. The effect of these corrections has been parameterized in ref.  by a correction to $`G_F`$ denoted by $`V`$. Recall that the contribution to $`G_F`$ from $`W`$ exchange is :

$`4\sqrt{2}G_{F,W}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{f^2}{4}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0)}}.`$ (33)
To include the effect of resonances we can write the bulk $`W`$ propagator as a sum over poles:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_W(q,R^{},R^{})=g_5^2{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _W^{(n)}(R^{})^2}{N_n(q^2M_W^{(n)2})}}`$ (34)
where $`N_n`$ is determined by

$`N_n={\displaystyle _R^R^{}}𝑑z|\psi _W^{(n)}(z)|^2,`$ (35)
and hence

$`N_0=Z_WR\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R).`$ (36)
Since we chose $`\psi _W^{(n)}(R^{})=1`$, we then have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_W(q,R^{},R^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_W}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{q^2M_W^2}}+g^2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_0\psi _W^{(n)}(R^{})^2}{Z_WN_n(q^2M_W^{(n)2})}}.`$ (37)
At zero momentum the first term on the right hand side is just $`4\sqrt{2}G_{F,W}`$, and the remaining terms are the additional corrections not coming from the $`W`$ pole. If we write the correction to $`G_F`$ as $`G_F=G_{F,W}(1+V)`$ then we have

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_W(q=0,R^{},R^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{f^2}{4}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0)}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{4}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0)\right)`$ (38)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_5^2Rv^2}{16R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}\left(2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}R^2}{\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{8}}f^2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R),`$
where in the last line we have again dropped terms suppressed by powers of $`\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)`$.

Thus we see that there are three types of corrections to precision electroweak observables in RS models: $`S`$, $`T`$, and $`V`$. Note that some of these corrections have also been considered in Refs. . To relate our parameters to observables we use the standard definition of $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _0`$ from the $`Z`$ pole,

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha (M_Z^2)}{\sqrt{2}G_FM_Z^2}},`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0`$ $`=`$ $`0.23105\pm 0.00008`$ (40)
where  $`\alpha (M_Z^2)^1=128.92\pm 0.03`$ is the running SM fine-structure constant at $`M_Z`$. We can relate this measured value with the bare value in this class of models,

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0=s^2+{\displaystyle \frac{s^2c^2}{c^2s^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4s^2c^2}}S+\alpha TV\right),`$ (41)
which is obtained by considering all corrections to (39) in the usual way (see ). Also, in the RS model we have the simple result that with only the tree-level 5D renormalizations the running couplings defined by Kennedy and Lynn  which appear in $`Z`$-pole asymmetries are the same as the bare couplings:

$`s_{}^2(q^2)=s^2,e_{}^2(q^2)=e^2.`$ (42)
In addition to the contribution from $`T`$, there are further corrections to the low-energy ratio of charged- to neutral-current interactions coming from resonance exchange. We will absorb this effect into the parameter $`\rho _{}`$:

$`\rho _{}={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{f^2}{4}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}(0)}{\frac{f^2}{4}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}(0)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+V/c^2}{1+V}}\right)1+\alpha T+{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{c^2}}V.`$ (43)
Curiously in the RS model we find that the contributions from $`T`$ and $`V`$ cancel, and $`\rho _{}=1`$. We will however present the general results for precision observables in Appendix A without assuming a relation between $`T`$ and $`V`$, so that our results can be used for more general models. With Eqs. (41) and (43) it is straightforward to calculate the corrections in a general model to precision electroweak observables in terms of $`S`$, $`T`$, and $`V`$. The expressions for the various observables together with the SM predictions and experimental results are given in Appendix A.

The result of a global fit to the 23 observables listed in Table 1 is that for $`M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}=115`$ GeV

$`R^{}(\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R))^{1/2}<0.50\mathrm{TeV}^1`$ (44)
at the 95 % confidence level. Taking $`\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)=32`$ (as is often done to naturally explain the hierarchy between the Planck and weak scales ) we have:

$`1/R^{}>11\mathrm{TeV}.`$ (45)
For a value of $`R^{}`$ which saturates this bound we have

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`0.19`$
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`0.03`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`0.00082`$ (46)
Since the $`T`$ and $`V`$ contributions to $`\rho _{}`$ cancel and for these values the contribution of $`S`$ to $`(s^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0)`$ is about 8.6 times larger than that of $`T`$ and 2.6 times larger than that of $`V`$, it is the $`S`$ parameter constraint that dominantly determines the bound on $`R^{}`$.

It is interesting to note that for the $`Z`$-pole observables, which do not depend on $`\rho _{}`$, one can absorb the contribution from $`V`$ into an effective $`T`$:

$`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=T{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\alpha }}.`$ (47)
Thus in the RS model, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is even more negative than $`T`$. One can then use the bounds on $`S`$ and $`T`$ to estimate the bounds on $`R^{}`$, which yields results similar to (45).

In the RS model there is also a light radion that contributes to precision electroweak observables at the loop level (together with loops of the KK gravitons and gauge bosons). These contributions have been calculated separately  and are small unless an extra Higgs-radion coupling  is introduced. With this additional coupling, the radion corrections tend to make $`S`$ more negative and hence only tighten the bound on $`R^{}`$.

In the SM, the fit to data gets significantly worse when the Higgs mass is raised. The reason is that the Higgs contributes positively to $`S`$, while the data prefers a small or negative $`S`$. However, in our case $`S`$ is negative, so one might think that a larger Higgs mass can be accommodated. Unfortunately at the same time the Higgs also contributes negatively to $`T`$, as can be seen from the approximate expressions

$$S_{Higgs}\frac{1}{12\pi }\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{m_H^2}{m_{H,ref}^2}\right),T_{Higgs}\frac{3}{12\pi c^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{m_H^2}{m_{H,ref}^2}\right).$$
(48)
Therefore even though the agreement with $`S`$ can be improved by raising the Higgs mass, $`T`$ will start to deviate even more. In order to see if the fit can be improved we have repeated it for the SM results evaluated at $`M_H=300`$ GeV and $`600`$ GeV. In the case of the SM, $`\chi ^2`$ for the 23 observables listed in Table 1 in the Appendix increases by about $`11`$ as $`M_H`$ increases from $`115`$ to $`300`$ GeV. If we now turn on the corrections from the RS model, the difference between the minimal $`\chi ^2`$’s for the $`300`$ GeV and $`115`$ GeV Higgs reduces to about 7.6, slightly improving the fit, but still outside the $`95\%`$ confidence region ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=6.2`$) of a two parameter fit (our parameters being the Higgs mass and $`X=f^2R^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{log}(R^{}/R)`$). Hence, the Higgs mass bound is slightly relaxed but not significantly. Assuming a $`300`$ GeV Higgs in turn would relax the limit for $`R^{}`$ to $`1/R^{}9.0`$ TeV (again assuming $`\mathrm{log}R^{}/R=32`$). For the case of the $`600`$ GeV Higgs the increase in minimum $`\chi ^2`$ is 19, and is clearly excluded by a wide margin in the two parameter fit. Assuming a $`600`$ GeV Higgs the bound on $`R^{}`$ becomes $`8.2`$ TeV $`<1/R^{}<22`$ TeV. These results are illustrated in Fig. 1.

If one were intent on having a heavy Higgs one could add additional new physics to the model that give positive contributions to $`T`$ , but this seems completely ad hoc in the present context.

The bound (45) on $`R^{}`$ pushes the $`W`$ gauge boson resonance masses up to around 27 TeV. The graviton KK masses are always heavier than the gauge boson modes , for example here the lowest possible value is around 46 TeV. Thus in the RS model with bulk gauge bosons there will be no possible signatures from resonances in $`WW`$ scattering to observe at the LHC. The focus would have to be on the Higgs-radion sector .

To the extent that the RS model corresponds to a technicolor like model we find these models can be consistent with experiment as long as the resonance masses are dialed up. Unfortunately for technicolor models there was no parameter which changed the resonance mass independently of the electroweak breaking scale $`f`$.

## 5 Conclusions

We have matched the 5D RS model onto a 4D low-energy effective theory and found large (logarithmically enhanced) negative contributions to $`S`$ and $`T`$. It is interesting to note that this is the first model to naturally produce a large negative value for $`S`$ ; however this is mitigated by the fact that the resulting bound on $`R^{}`$ from precision electroweak measurements forces a seemingly unnatural hierarchy of about a factor of 50 between the Higgs vev and the nominal electroweak scale of the RS model $`1/R^{}11`$ TeV. This pushes the gauge boson resonances (and the graviton KK modes) far beyond the reach of the LHC.

## Acknowledgments

We thank T. Bhattacharya, and J.T. thanks S. Giddings, M. Graesser, J. Hewett, M. Peskin, E. Silverstein and S. Thomas for useful discussions, and J. Erler for providing us the SM predictions used in our fit. The research of C.C is supported in part by the NSF, and in part by the DOE OJI grant DE-FG02-01ER41206. The research of J.E. and J.T. is supported by the US Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36.

## Appendix

## A. Predictions for Electroweak Observables

In this appendix we give the predictions of a general model model with contributions to $`S`$, $`T`$, and $`V`$ for the electroweak precision observables. We also give in Table (1) the experimental data  and the SM predictions used for our fit in Section 4. Using the results given in  as well as the low-energy $`\nu e`$ couplings:

$`g_{eV}(\nu e\nu e)=2\rho _{}(s^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}),g_{eA}(\nu e\nu e)={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{}}{2}}.`$ (A.49)
we find the following results:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z=\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z\right)_{SM}\left(13.8\times 10^3S+0.011T1.4V\right)`$
$`R_e=\left(R_e\right)_{SM}\left(12.9\times 10^3S+2.0\times 10^3T0.26V\right)`$
$`R_\mu =\left(R_\mu \right)_{SM}\left(12.9\times 10^3S+2.0\times 10^3T0.26V\right)`$
$`R_\tau =\left(R_\tau \right)_{SM}\left(12.9\times 10^3S+2.0\times 10^3T0.26V\right)`$
$`\sigma _h=\left(\sigma _h\right)_{SM}\left(1+2.2\times 10^4S1.6\times 10^4T+0.021V\right)`$
$`R_b=\left(R_b\right)_{SM}\left(1+6.6\times 10^4S4.0\times 10^4T+0.052V\right)`$
$`R_c=\left(R_c\right)_{SM}\left(11.3\times 10^3S+1.0\times 10^3T0.13V\right)`$
$`A_{FB}^e=\left(A_{FB}^e\right)_{SM}6.8\times 10^3S+4.8\times 10^3T0.62V`$
$`A_{FB}^\mu =\left(A_{FB}^\mu \right)_{SM}6.8\times 10^3S+4.8\times 10^3T0.62V`$
$`A_{FB}^\tau =\left(A_{FB}^\tau \right)_{SM}6.8\times 10^3S+4.8\times 10^3T0.62V`$
$`A_\tau (P_\tau )=\left(A_\tau (P_\tau )\right)_{SM}0.028S+0.020T2.6V`$
$`A_e(P_\tau )=\left(A_e(P_\tau )\right)_{SM}0.028S+0.020T2.6V`$
$`A_{FB}^b=\left(A_{FB}^b\right)_{SM}0.020S+0.014T1.8V`$
$`A_{FB}^c=\left(A_{FB}^c\right)_{SM}0.016S+0.011T1.4V`$
$`A_{LR}=\left(A_{LR}\right)_{SM}0.028S+0.020T2.6V`$
$`M_W=\left(M_W\right)_{SM}\left(13.6\times 10^3S+5.5\times 10^3T0.71V\right)`$
$`M_W/M_Z=\left(M_W/M_Z\right)_{SM}\left(13.6\times 10^3S+5.5\times 10^3T0.71V\right)`$
$`g_L^2(\nu N\nu X)=\left(g_L^2(\nu N\nu X)\right)_{SM}2.7\times 10^3S+6.5\times 10^3T0.066V`$
$`g_R^2(\nu N\nu X)=\left(g_R^2(\nu N\nu X)\right)_{SM}+9.3\times 10^4S2.0\times 10^4T+0.10V`$
$`g_{eV}(\nu e\nu e)=\left(g_{eV}(\nu e\nu e)\right)_{SM}+7.2\times 10^3S5.4\times 10^3T+0.65V`$
$`g_{eA}(\nu e\nu e)=\left(g_{eA}(\nu e\nu e)\right)_{SM}3.9\times 10^3T0.15V`$
$`Q_W(Cs)=\left(Q_W(Cs)\right)_{SM}0.793S0.0090T95V`$ (A.50)


format: text

text:
# Spin-dependent thermoelectric transport coefficients in near-perfect quantum wires

## I Introduction

One of the main properties of small confined electron systems, intensively studied experimentally and theoretically in the last decade, is the electrical conductance. However, other transport coefficients also serve as a sensitive probe of new phenomena in such systems, such as the thermopower of chaotic quantum dots  or of atomic size metallic contacts  and most recently, anomalies in one-dimensional wires . Theoretical investigations predict in these systems a range of new properties of transport coefficients, such as anomalously enhanced thermopower in quantum dots due to the Kondo effect  and, at low temperatures, changes in sign together with linear thermal conductance violating Wiedemann-Franz law . Anomalies in thermoelectric coefficients are also found in standard strongly correlated systems: the Anderson model , the Hubbard model  and the $`t`$-$`J`$ model .

In this paper, we extend our recent theoretical study of conductance anomalies to include thermoelectric effects due to a temperature gradient. Anomalies are related to weakly bound electron states within the quantum wire. In particular, we consider a small fluctuation in thickness of the wire in some region giving rise to a weak bulge. If this bulge is very weak then only a single electron will be bound. We may thus regard this system as an ‘open’ quantum dot in which the bound electron inhibits the transport of conduction electrons. Near the conduction threshold, there is a ’Coulomb blockade’ and we have shown that this gives rise to spin-dependent resonances, also in an axial magnetic field, for wires of both rectangular  and cylindrical  cross-section.

Experimentally, the staircase structure of the conductance of quantum wires was reported more than a decade ago , and more recent systematic investigations showed unexpected structure in the rising edge to the first conductance plateau .

Here we model a quantum wire as in Ref.  and, explicitly, we assume a wire of circular symmetry about the $`z`$-axis with constant potential, $`V(r,z)=0`$ within a boundary $`r_0(z)`$ from the symmetry axis and confining potential $`V_0>0`$ elsewhere. This geometry is close to that of narrow ’v’-groove quantum wires, which also exhibit anomalies near the conductance threshold. To be definite, we choose parameters appropriate to GaAs for the wire and AlxGa1-x As for the barrier with $`x`$ such that $`V_0=0.4`$eV, which is close to the crossover to indirect gap. The wire width is taken as $`r_0(z)=\frac{1}{2}a_0(1+\xi \mathrm{cos}^2\pi z/a_1)`$ for $`|z|\frac{1}{2}a_1`$ and $`r_0(z)\frac{1}{2}a_0`$ otherwise, i.e., a wire of width $`a_0`$ with a single bulge of length $`a_1`$ and width $`(1+\xi )a_0`$, as shown in insets of Fig. 1(c) and Fig. 2(c).

## II Conductance

We consider the interacting electron problem with the above wire thickness variation in a range which ensures that only one electron occupies a bound state and that restriction to a single channel near the conduction edge is an excellent approximation. This is always the case for a very weak smooth variation, i.e. a near perfect wire. From numerically exact solutions of the two-electron scattering problem, the conductance is calculated from our generalisation of the usual Landauer-Büttiker (LB) formula , to include spin-dependent scattering  of conduction electrons from the single electron bound in the potential well. This gives $`G(\mu )=G_0𝒯(\mu )`$, where $`G_0=2e^2/h`$, $`\mu `$ is the Fermi energy and the transmitivity is a weighted average over singlet and triplet channels ,

$$𝒯(\mu )=\frac{1}{4}𝒯_\mathrm{s}(\mu )+\frac{3}{4}𝒯_\mathrm{t}(\mu ).$$
(1)
At elevated temperatures we use the LB finite temperature extension

$$G(\mu )=G_0\left[\frac{f(ϵ,\mu ,T)}{ϵ}\right]𝒯(ϵ)𝑑ϵ,$$
(2)
where $`f(ϵ,\mu ,T)=(1+\mathrm{exp}[(ϵ\mu )/k_\mathrm{B}T])^1`$ is the usual Fermi function which describes the thermal distribution of electrons in the leads. $`G(\mu )`$ is shown in Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 2(a) for a wire with relatively small and a larger bulge, respectively. Here the energy is measured from the threshold of the conductance. As discussed in Ref. , the weak bulge in the wire is equivalent to a shallow potential well in a perfectly straight wire and if the length of the bulge region is small, this effective potential well can only accommodate one bound state with the consequence that only a singlet resonance in $`G`$ exists, as observed, for example, in Ref. . Conversely, if the bulge region is longer, both, singlet and triplet resonances contribute. For even longer bulge regions with a very shallow effective potential well (near perfect wire), the singlet resonance is pushed to lower energy and therefore becomes extremely narrow. In this regime, only the broader triplet can be resolved at finite temperature , as observed experimentally in clean gated structures .

## III Thermoelectric effects

The LB approach can be extended to include electrical and heat currents through a region between two leads with different temperatures and chemical potentials . With $`T+\mathrm{\Delta }T`$, $`\mu +eU`$ for the left lead and $`T`$, $`\mu `$ for the right lead, we get

$`j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{h}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }f(ϵ)𝒯(ϵ)dϵ},`$ (3)
$`j_\mathrm{Q}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{h}}{\displaystyle (ϵ\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }f(ϵ)𝒯(ϵ)dϵ},`$ (4)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f(ϵ)=f(ϵ,\mu +eU,T+\mathrm{\Delta }T)f(ϵ,\mu ,T).$$
(5)
In the linear response regime of vanishing $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ and $`U`$ the currents simplify to

$`j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e^2}{h}}K_0(\mu )U+{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{h}}K_1(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}},`$ (6)
$`j_\mathrm{Q}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{h}}K_1(\mu )U+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{h}}K_2(\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}},`$ (7)
where

$$K_n(\mu )=(ϵ\mu )^n\frac{f(ϵ,\mu ,T)}{ϵ}𝒯(ϵ)dϵ.$$
(8)
### A Thermopower

The Seebeck thermopower coefficient $`S`$ measures the voltage difference needed to neutralize the current due to the temperature difference between the leads. In the linear response regime the thermopower is given by,

$$S(\mu )=\frac{U}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}=\frac{1}{eT}\frac{K_1(\mu )}{K_0(\mu )},$$
(9)
as is for various systems discussed in Refs. . Eq. 9 is formally the same as the Mott-Jones formula for simple metals  and generalized for a system with stronger electron-phonon interactions in Refs. .

In Fig. 1(b) the thermopower of a narrow wire with a small bulge is presented for the same range of temperatures as $`G(\mu )`$. Such a result is expected, e.g., for the system studied in Ref. . The structure reflects the singlet resonance observed in the conductance and is smeared out at temperatures comparable with the width of the resonance. In a wire with small thickness variation, but with a longer bulge, triplet resonance scattering also exists, as shown in Fig. 2. In the thermopower curve of Fig. 2(b), the dominant structure at lower temperatures comes from the singlet resonance, though the triplet resonance is still clearly discernible. At higher temperatures the triplet structure is washed out first, in contrast to the conductance result, Fig. 2(a). At low temperatures only the transmitivity at energies close to the chemical potential contributes to the above integrals and the general result Eq. 9 can be related to the temperature dependent $`G(\mu )`$ by the following expansion

$$S(\mu )=\frac{\pi ^2k_{\mathrm{B}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}T}{3e}\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}G(\mu )}{\mu }+\frac{\pi ^2k_\mathrm{B}^2T^2}{15G(\mu )}\frac{^3G(\mu )}{\mu ^3}\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(10)
Our results were calculated using the exact relation Eq. 9. However, the leading term in Eq. 10, is a reasonable approximation for energies above the singlet resonance and up to temperatures where the structure is thermally smeared out. This is shown in Fig. 3(a) where we present a comparison of $`S(\mu )`$ for the exact result with the approximations to first and second order. We see that at energies below the resonance, both the linear and cubic approximations deviate significantly from the exact result, Eq. 9. In this regime the conductance is itself very small and hence $`G(\mu )^1^nG(\mu )/\mu ^n`$ is prone to error making calculations and experimental data analysis based on this expansion unreliable.

The thermopower of one-dimensional wires has been measured  and more recently, further anomalies related to ‘0.7 anomaly’ in conductance were reported . The authors of Ref.  observe a dip in $`S(\mu )`$ at energies corresponding to the anomaly in $`G(\mu )`$. However, the logarithmic derivative with respect to the gate voltage of the measured $`G`$ exhibits a much deeper minimum than the dip in the measured $`S(\mu )`$, which remains well above zero even at the lowest temperatures . This clearly shows that a simple non-interacting formula is not valid in this low temperature regime. Apart from the small corrections to the logarithmic approximation to $`S`$, our model and its solution within the LB framework are

in agreement with the findings of Ref. . That is, the calculated thermopower is in good agreement with experiment except at low temperatures where we also predict a deep minimum. This discrepancy at low-temperatures may well be a many-body Kondo-like effect contained within our model but not within the two-electron approximation we have used here and in our earlier papers. We expect the two-electron approximation to break down at low temperatures for which the underlying extended Hubbard model, which is the starting point of our approach, can be mapped onto a generalised Anderson model with coupling terms that are strongly energy dependent . The standard results for the single impurity problem  cannot be applied directly to this effective model, which is the subject of current research . At very low temperatures, a Kondo-like resonance is expected , for which many-body effects would dominate with a breakdown of formula Eq. 9.

### B Thermal conductance

The linear thermal conductance is the heat current divided by the temperature difference between the leads when the chemical potentials are adjusted to give no electrical current. From Eqs. 6-8 we see that this is related to $`𝒯(ϵ)`$ by,

$$\kappa (\mu )=\frac{2}{hT}\left(K_2(\mu )\frac{K_1^2(\mu )}{K_0(\mu )}\right).$$
(11)
For low temperatures this simplifies to Wiedemann-Franz law, first term in

$`\kappa (\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2k_\mathrm{B}^2T}{3e^2}}G(\mu )(1+`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2k_\mathrm{B}^2T^2}{15}}[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{G(\mu )}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2G(\mu )}{\mu ^2}}5\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}G(\mu )}{\mu }}\right)^2])+\mathrm{}`$ (13)
In Fig. 1(c) and Fig. 2(c) $`\kappa (\mu )`$ is shown for $`T`$ from 0.2K to 4K, calculated from Eq. 11. Comparison of Figs. 1(a),2(a) with Figs. 1(c),2(c) shows good agreement with the Wiedemann-Franz law at lower temperatures but there is increasing deviation at higher temperatures in the resonance region. For comparison, the dashed lines in Fig. 1(c), Fig. 2(c) show the corresponding linear approximation result, Eq. 12. This is also seen in the plot of $`\kappa `$ for $`T=2`$K shown in Fig. 3(b). One of the most striking features of these plots is that $`\kappa (\mu )`$, calculated from Eq. 11, exhibits an anomaly at higher energies than the corresponding anomaly in conductance, a prediction which is open to experimental verification.

## IV Summary

In summary we have, within the framework of the LB approach, calculated thermal transport coefficients for near-perfect quantum semiconductor quantum wires, extending our earlier work on spin-dependent conduction anomalies. These anomalies are a universal effect in one-dimensional systems with very weak longitudinal confinement. The emergence of a specific structure $`G(\mu )\frac{1}{4}G_0`$ and $`G\frac{3}{4}G_0`$ is a spin effect, being a direct consequence of the singlet and triplet nature of the resonances. The probability ratio 1:3 for singlet and triplet scattering follows directly from this and as such is a universal effect, not only for conductance but all thermoelectric transport coefficients. A comprehensive numerical investigation of open quantum dots using a wide range of parameters shows that singlet resonances are always at lower energies than the triplets, in accordance with the Lieb-Mattis theorem for bound states .

Thermopower plots show anomalies, related ultimately to the Coulomb interaction between a localised electron and the remaining conduction electrons. We have shown that the lower-energy singlet anomalies in thermopower are more pronounced. These should be clearly observable in wires which show the corresponding conductance anomalies, such as the narrow ‘hard confined’ wires reported in Ref. , or in gated quantum wires under high source-drain bias where the singlet anomaly is clearly observed .

Finally we conclude by emphasising that although our model of a quantum wire with a weak bulge may appear rather specialised, it is actually quite general since the weak bulge is mathematically equivalent to a weak potential well in an otherwise perfect wire. As with our previous work, we have not investigated in detail the actual causes of such weak effective (or real) potential wells but point out that they may well be due to quite different sources in different experiments, e.g. thickness fluctuations, remote impurities or gates, electronic polarisation, or some other more subtle electron interaction effect. The main point is that because the effective potential well is shallow, it will bind one and only one electron. The universal anomalies in conductance and thermopower are a direct consequence of this and occur for a wide range of circumstances in almost perfect quantum wires.

## V Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge N. Appleyard and M. Pepper for drawing our attention to the thermopower problem in quantum wires and for helpful discussions. This work was supported by MESS, the EU and the UK MoD.