text:
# Top quark Kaluza-Klein mode mixing in the Randall-Sundrum bulk Standard Model and 𝐵→𝑋_𝑠𝛾

## I Introduction

Inspired by recent advances in string theories, some particle physicists have resort to extra dimensions for the gauge hierarchy problem of the standard model (SM). Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali (ADD) proposed that there exist $`n`$ large extra dimensions with factorizable geometry Antoniadis:1998ig : The observed huge Planck scale $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is attributed to the largeness of the extra dimension volume $`V_n`$, since $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2=M_S^{n+2}V_n`$ with $`M_S`$ being the fundamental string scale. The hierarchy problem is resolved as $`M_S`$ can be maintained around TeV. Later Randall and Sundrum (RS) proposed another higher dimensional scenario where the hierarchy problem is explained by a geometrical exponential factor, based on two branes and a single extra dimension with non-factorizable geometry Randall:1999ee . Apart from the gauge hierarchy problem, TeV scale extra dimensions accessible to the SM fields have drawn a lot of interest due to various motivations such as gauge coupling unification Dienes:1998vh , new mechanisms for supersymmetry breaking Antoniadis:1990ew , the explanation of fermion mass hierarchies Arkani-Hamed:1999dc , and the presence of the Higgs doublet as a composite of top quarks Arkani-Hamed:2000hv .

Of great significance and interest is that extra dimensional models can leave distinct and rich phenomenological signatures at future colliders. In the ADD scenario, due to the large volume of extra dimensions, the SM fields should be confined to our brane. Only the graviton propagates in the bulk, to be observed as Kaluza-Klein (KK) gravitons with almost continuous mass spectrum ADD-ph . In the models of TeV scale extra dimensions accessible to the SM fields, KK excitations of the SM gauge (and possibly fermion) fields with TeV scale masses would be observed as resonances Uni-ph ; Agashe:2001xt . In the original RS scenario, the SM fields are assumed to be confined to our brane. Phenomenological signatures come from KK gravitons with electroweak scale masses and couplings to matter, characterized by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$. However, the small size of the RS-bulk allows that the SM fields may also be in the bulk. In Ref. Davoudiasl:1999tf , it is demonstrated that placing the SM gauge fields in the RS-bulk while confining the fermions to our brane is strongly constrained by the current precision electroweak data so that the lowest KK state of gauge boson should be heavier than about 23 TeV. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ is pushed up to about 100 TeV, which is disfavored as a solution of the gauge hierarchy problem. If both the SM gauge and fermion fields are in the bulk Davoudiasl:2000wi , their phenomenological signatures are very sensitive to the bulk fermion mass $`m_\psi `$ which determines the KK mass spectrum of the bulk fermions and their interactions with bulk gauge bosons.

In the early study of the RS-bulk SM, Yukawa interactions with the Higgs field have been ignored due to small quark masses compared to the KK mass scale. Then a simple assumption of universal bulk fermion mass suppresses their contributions to flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) as well as the $`\rho `$ parameter Davoudiasl:2000wi ; Gherghetta:2000qt . This is because the common $`m_\psi `$ leads to the same KK mass spectra for all the SM fermions. The degeneracy of the up-type (and down-type) quark KK modes operates the GIM cancellation GIM  KK-level by level: With the minimal flavor violation assumption that at the tree level the flavor mixing comes only through the CKM matrix, FCNC is suppressed as in the SM. Since the KK modes of two constituents of SU(2)–doublet have also the same mass, their contribution to the $`\rho `$ parameter vanishes. However, the Yukawa interaction with the Higgs field mixes the fermion KK tower members, which can be substantial for the top quark Davoudiasl:2000wi ; top-mixing . Recently it has been shown that the large mixing in the top quark KK sector leads to unacceptably large contribution to the $`\rho `$ parameter and raises $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ above 100 TeV Hewett:2002fe . To accommodate those electroweak precision data, a ‘mixed’ scenario is proposed with the third generation fermions on the TeV brane but the other generations in the bulk. However, the first excited KK mode of gauge bosons should be heavier than 11 TeV due to the strong constraints from precision measurements: It is hard to probe the new physics effects at LHC. In addition, the obvious discrimination of fermions according to generation may lead to potentially dangerous FCNC due to the absence of GIM mechanism.

It must be worthwhile to keep the original framework where all the SM particles except for the Higgs boson are in the bulk, and to question other unsubstantiated assumptions. Then most of the rich phenomenologies of the RS-bulk SM at future colliders can remain still valid. We propose to relax the universal bulk fermion mass assumption. As the simplest and minimal extension, and particularly to satisfy the $`\rho `$ constraint, we assign a different bulk fermion mass $`m_\psi ^{}`$ to the SU(2)–singlet bottom quark field, and see whether there exists some parameter space to accommodate the $`\rho `$ and $`BX_s\gamma `$ constraints. We shall show that this $`m_\psi ^{}`$ allows some limited parameter space where the degeneracy between the top and bottom quark KK modes is retained, suppressing their contribution to the $`\rho `$ parameter. Through a careful and thorough analysis, the current constraint from the $`bs\gamma `$ decay shall be also shown consistent with the model.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we briefly review the RS-bulk SM, focused on the KK reduction and interactions of bulk gauge bosons and bulk fermions. In particular, we point out a subtle point when placing the SM fermions in the RS-bulk: The fermion field contents should be doubled. In Sec. III, we first discuss why the minimal model should be extended, by estimating its large contribution to the $`\rho `$ parameter. With a different bulk fermion mass for the SU(2)–singlet bottom quark field, we present the full mass matrixes of the top and bottom quark KK modes, including the Yukawa interactions with the Higgs field confined to our brane. Through explicit diagonalization of the top quark KK mass matrix, we present generic features of the KK mode mixing. In Sec. IV, we review the $`\rho `$ parameter and show there exists some parameter space where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ constraint is satisfied. Section V deals with the detailed study of the effects of the KK modes of $`W`$ gauge bosons and up-type quarks on the decay rate of $`bs\gamma `$. Finally, Sec. VI includes summary and conclusions.

## II Bulk SM in the RS scenario

In the RS scenario, a single extra dimension has been introduced with non-factorizable geometry, which is compactified on a $`S_1/Z_2`$ orbifold of radius $`r_c`$ Randall:1999ee . Requiring four-dimensional Poincaré invariance, the RS configuration has the following solution of the five-dimensional Einstein’s equation:

$$ds^2=G_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=e^{2\sigma (\varphi )}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +r_c^2d\varphi ^2,$$
(1)
where the four-dimensional metric tensor is defined by $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$, $`\sigma (\varphi )kr_c|\varphi |`$, $`0|\varphi |\pi `$, and the five-dimensional curvature is $`R_5=20k^2`$. Upper-case Roman indices run over all the five dimensions while the Greek indices over our four dimensions. Two orbifold fixed points accommodate two three-branes, the Planck brane at $`\varphi =0`$ and our TeV brane at $`|\varphi |=\pi `$. Due to the assignment of our brane at $`|\varphi |=\pi `$, any mass at the Planck scale appears gravitationally red-shifted by the so-called warp factor of $`ϵe^{kr_c\pi }`$. If $`kr_c12`$, the hierarchy problem can be resolved. Four-dimensional Planck scale $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is related with the fundamental string scale $`M_5`$ by $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2=M_5^3(1e^{2kr_c\pi })/k`$. Now let us review the masses of the KK modes of the bulk gauge and fermion fields, which are relevant to the $`\rho `$ parameter and $`bs\gamma `$ decay. The back-reaction of the bulk fields on the AdS5 metric is to be neglected.

### II.1 Gauge field KK spectrum

For a massless SU(2) gauge field $`A_M^a(x,\varphi )`$, gauge invariant five-dimensional action is Davoudiasl:1999tf ; Pomarol:1999ad

$$S_A=\frac{1}{4}d^5x\sqrt{G}G^{MK}G^{NL}F_{KL}^aF_{MN}^a,$$
(2)
where $`F_{MN}^a=_MA_N^a_NA_M^ag_5ϵ^{abc}A_M^bA_N^c(a,b,c=1,2,3)`$. By choosing the odd $`Z_2`$-parity for $`A_5^a(x,\varphi )`$ Davoudiasl:1999tf  and/or an appropriate gauge Delgado:1998qr , $`A_5^a(x,\varphi )`$ decouples from the Lagrangian. With the KK expansion of

$$A_\mu ^a(x,\varphi )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_\mu ^{a(n)}(x)\frac{\chi _A^{(n)}(\varphi )}{\sqrt{r_c}},$$
(3)
we have a four-dimensional effective action of massive KK gauge bosons as

$$S_A=d^4x\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \kappa }\eta ^{\nu \lambda }F_{\kappa \lambda }^{a(n)}F_{\mu \nu }^{a(n)}\frac{M_A^{(n)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }A_\mu ^{a(n)}A_\nu ^{a(n)}\right],$$
(4)
which is obtained by

$$\chi _A^{(n)}(\varphi )=\frac{e^{\sigma (\varphi )}}{N_A^{(n)}}\left[J_1(z_A^{(n)}(\varphi ))+\alpha _A^{(n)}Y_1(z_A^{(n)}(\varphi ))\right].$$
(5)
Here, $`z_A^{(n)}(\varphi )`$ and the normalization $`N_A^{(n)}`$ are given by

$`z_A^{(n)}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_A^{(n)}}{k}}e^{\sigma (\varphi )},`$ (6)
$`N_A^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{kr_c\pi }}{\sqrt{kr_c}}}\left|J_1(x_A^{(n)})\right|,`$
where $`x_A^{(n)}z_A^{(n)}(\pi )=M_A^{(n)}/k_{EW}`$ with $`k_{EW}ϵk`$. Note that the wave function $`\chi _A^{(n)}(\varphi )`$ satisfies the orthonormal condition

$$_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\varphi \chi _A^{(m)}(\varphi )\chi _A^{(n)}(\varphi )=\delta ^{mn},$$
(7)
which leads to $`\chi _A^{(0)}=1/\sqrt{2\pi }`$. The continuity of $`d\chi _A^{(n)}/d\varphi `$ at $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =\pm \pi `$ determines the coefficient $`\alpha _A^{(n)}`$ to be

$$\alpha _A^{(n)}=\frac{J_0(M_A^{(n)}/k)}{Y_0(M_A^{(n)}/k)},$$
(8)
and $`x_A^{(n)}`$ to be the roots of the following equation:

$$J_0(x_A^{(n)})+\alpha _A^{(n)}Y_0(x_A^{(n)})=0.$$
(9)
Numerically we have $`x_A^{(1)}2.45`$, $`x_A^{(2)}5.57`$, $`x_A^{(3)}8.70`$, and $`x_A^{(4)}11.84`$.

### II.2 Review of Grossman-Neubert fermion KK spectrum

Let us review in detail the KK solution of a bulk fermion with arbitrary Dirac bulk mass in the RS scenario Gherghetta:2000qt ; Grossman:1999ra ; Chang:1999nh , which causes a subtle problem when discussing the bulk SM. The five-dimensional action of a Dirac fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with the bulk mass $`m_\psi `$ is

$$S=\text{d}^4x\text{d}\varphi \sqrt{G}\left\{E_{\underset{¯}{A}}^A\left[\frac{i}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^{\underset{¯}{A}}(D_A\stackrel{}{D_A})\mathrm{\Psi }\right]m_\psi \text{sign}(\varphi )\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }\right\},$$
(10)
where $`D_A`$ is the covariant derivative, $`\gamma ^{\underset{¯}{A}}=(\gamma ^\mu ,i\gamma _5)`$, and the inverse vielbein $`E_{\underset{¯}{A}}^A=\text{diag}(e^\sigma ,e^\sigma ,e^\sigma ,e^\sigma ,1/r_c)`$. The underlined upper-case Roman indices describe objects in the tangent frame. The contribution of the spin connection $`\omega _{\underset{¯}{B}\underset{¯}{C}A}`$, which vanishes by including hermitian conjugates, is omitted.

Integration by parts leads to the action

$`S={\displaystyle \text{d}^4x\text{d}\varphi r_c}`$ $`\{`$ $`e^{3\sigma }\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_Li\text{/}\mathrm{\Psi }_L+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_Ri\text{/}\mathrm{\Psi }_R\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r_c}}\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L\left(e^{4\sigma }_\varphi +_\varphi e^{4\sigma }\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R\left(e^{4\sigma }_\varphi +_\varphi e^{4\sigma }\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_L\right]`$
$`e^{4\sigma }m_\psi \text{sign}(\varphi )(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L\mathrm{\Psi }_R+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R\mathrm{\Psi }_L)\},`$
where we impose periodic boundary conditions of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,R}(x,\pi )=\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,R}(x,\pi )`$. With the KK expansion of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,R}(x,\varphi )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\psi _{L,R}^{(n)}(x)\frac{e^{2\sigma (\varphi )}}{\sqrt{r_c}}\widehat{f}_{L,R}^{(n)}(\varphi ),$$
(12)
and the requirement of

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}\text{d}\varphi e^{\sigma (\varphi )}\widehat{f}_L^{(m)}(\varphi )\widehat{f}_L^{(n)}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}\text{d}\varphi e^{\sigma (\varphi )}\widehat{f}_R^{(m)}(\varphi )\widehat{f}_R^{(n)}(\varphi )=\delta ^{mn},`$ (13)
$`\left(\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_c}}_\varphi m\right)\widehat{f}_{L,R}^{(n)}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`M_f^{(n)}e^\sigma \widehat{f}_{R,L}^{(n)}(\varphi ),`$ (14)
we have a tower of massive Dirac fermions with the effective action

$$S=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\text{d}^4x\left\{\overline{\psi }^{(n)}(x)i\text{/}\psi ^{(n)}(x)M_f^{(n)}\overline{\psi }^{(n)}(x)\psi ^{(n)}(x)\right\}.$$
(15)
Note that $`Z_2`$-symmetric action constrains $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L\mathrm{\Psi }_R+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,R}(1\gamma _5)\mathrm{\Psi }/2`$) to be $`Z_2`$-odd, as can be seen from the first term in Eq. (10). If $`f_L^{(n)}`$ is a $`Z_2`$-even function $`\chi ^{(n)}`$ then $`f_R^{(n)}`$ should be a $`Z_2`$-odd function $`\tau ^{(n)}`$ and vice versa. With $`\nu m_\psi /k`$ of order one, solutions are, for $`n0`$,

$`\chi ^{(n)}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\sigma /2}}{N_\chi ^{(n)}}}\left[J_{1/2\nu }(z^{(n)})+\beta _\chi ^{(n)}Y_{1/2\nu }(z^{(n)})\right],`$ (16)
$`\tau ^{(n)}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\sigma /2}}{N_\tau ^{(n)}}}\left[J_{1/2+\nu }(z^{(n)})+\beta _\tau ^{(n)}Y_{1/2+\nu }(z^{(n)})\right],`$
and for $`n=0`$

$$\chi ^{(0)}(\varphi )=\frac{e^{\nu \sigma (\varphi )}}{N_\chi ^{(0)}},\tau ^{(0)}(\varphi )=0.$$
(17)
With the even $`Z_2`$-parity of $`\chi ^{(n)}`$ and the odd parity of $`\tau ^{(n)}`$, Eq. (14) yields boundary conditions

$$0=\left(\frac{d}{d\varphi }mr_c\right)\chi ^{(n)}|_{\varphi =0,\pi }=\tau ^{(n)}|_{\varphi =0,\pi },$$
(18)
which determine the coefficients $`\beta _{\chi ,\tau }^{(n)}`$ and the normalization constants $`N_{\chi ,\tau }^{(n)}`$, as well as the KK fermion mass $`M_f^{(n)}x_f^{(n)}k_{EW}`$ with $`x_f^{(n)}z_f^{(n)}(\pi )`$. We present only $`Z_2`$-even part relevant for later discussion:

$`\beta _\chi ^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_{(\nu +1/2)}(M_f^{(n)}/k)}{Y_{(\nu +1/2)}(M_f^{(n)}/k)}},`$ (19)
$`N_\chi ^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^{(\nu +1/2)}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{kr_c}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1ϵ^{1+2\nu }}{1+2\nu }}\right|},`$
$`N_\chi ^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{kr_c\pi }}{x_f^{(n)}\sqrt{kr_c}}}\sqrt{z_\chi ^{(n)2}\left\{J_{\frac{1}{2}\nu }(z_\chi ^{(n)})+\beta _\chi ^{(n)}Y_{\frac{1}{2}\nu }(z_\chi ^{(n)})\right\}^2|_{\varphi =0}^{\varphi =\pi }}.`$
And $`x_f^{(n)}`$ is the solution of

$$J_{(\nu +1/2)}(x_f^{(n)})+\beta _\chi ^{(n)}Y_{(\nu +1/2)}(x_f^{(n)})=0,$$
(20)
which is the same as that of the right-handed one. We refer to Ref. Davoudiasl:2000wi  for the corresponding expressions of the $`Z_2`$-odd part.

Discussions on the physical and phenomenological implications of the parameter $`\nu `$ are in order here. Note that the canonically re-scaled zero mode of $`Z_2`$-even bulk fermion is proportional to $`e^{(1/2+\nu )kr_c|\varphi |}`$ (see the first line of Eq. (II.2) with Eqs. (12) and (17)). For $`\nu 1/2`$ the fermion bulk wave functions are localized toward the Planck brane: The magnitudes of its gauge couplings with KK gauge bosons are quite small. In Refs. Gherghetta:2000qt ; Davoudiasl:2000my , it has been numerically demonstrated that for $`\nu <0.5`$ the couplings are too small to be probed at high energy colliders. For $`\nu 1`$ the SM fermions become localized closer to the TeV brane: The model approaches the RS model with the gauge fields only in the bulk, which is phenomenologically disfavored due to unreasonably large $`M_A^{(1)}`$ Davoudiasl:1999tf . To be specific, if $`\nu >0.3`$, the large contribution to the precision electroweak data pushes $`M_A^{(1)}`$ up to about 6 TeV, beyond the direct production at any planned collider. In what follows, therefore, we consider the parameter space of $`\nu `$ between $`0.5`$ and $`0.3`$.

### II.3 Accommodating the SM fermion sector

In order to place the SM fermions in the AdS5 bulk, the fermion field contents should be doubled. In the SM, a fermion field with left-handed chirality and that with right-handed chirality belong to different representations of a gauge group: For example, the left-handed up quark ($`u_L`$) and the left-handed down quark ($`d_L`$) form an SU(2)–doublet, while the right-handed up and down quarks ($`u_R`$ and $`d_R`$) are two SU(2)–singlet fields. $`u_L`$ and $`u_R`$ are related by the Dirac mass term, Yukawa coupling with the Higgs field. Two Dirac fermion fields, $`u`$ and $`d`$, are enough to describe each generation in the quark sector. In the RS-bulk SM, a fermion which belongs to a specific representation of a gauge group should possess both left- and right-handed chiralities. If only one chiral state (e.g., $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$) exists, the second line in Eq. (II.2) as well as the bulk mass term vanish: Non-trivial solution of the $`\widehat{f}_{L,R}^{(n)}(\varphi )`$ cannot be obtained. For each generation, we introduce four five-dimensional Dirac fields, an SU(2)–doublet fermion field $`Q=(q_u,q_d)^T`$ and two SU(2)–singlet fermion fields, $`u`$ and $`d`$, with weak hypercharges $`Y=1/6`$, $`2/3`$, and $`1/3`$ respectively.

Since the SM fermion should correspond to the KK zero mode, we assign $`Z_2`$-even wave function $`\chi ^{(n)}`$ to the left-handed SU(2)–doublet and the right-handed SU(2)–singlet such that

$`Q(x,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`Q_L+Q_R={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\sigma (\varphi )}}{\sqrt{r_c}}}\left[Q_L^{(n)}(x)\chi ^{(n)}(\varphi )+Q_R^{(n)}(x)\tau ^{(n)}(\varphi )\right],`$ (21)
$`u(x,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`u_L+u_R={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\sigma (\varphi )}}{\sqrt{r_c}}}\left[u_L^{(n)}(x)\tau ^{(n)}(\varphi )+u_R^{(n)}(x)\chi ^{(n)}(\varphi )\right],`$
and $`d(x,\varphi )`$ has the same KK decomposition as $`u(x,\varphi )`$. The charged current interactions, mediated by the bulk $`W`$ boson, connect $`q_u`$ and $`q_d`$:

$`S_{f\overline{f}^{}W^\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^5x\sqrt{G}e^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{g_5}{\sqrt{2}}}[\overline{q}_u\text{/}W^+q_d+h.c.]`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\overline{q}_{uL}^{(n)}\text{/}W^{+(l)}q_{dL}^{(m)}\left\{C_{nml}^{\overline{f}f^{}W}\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\overline{q}_{uR}^{(n)}\text{/}W^{+(l)}q_{dR}^{(m)}\left\{\sqrt{2\pi }{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }d\varphi e^\sigma \tau ^{(n)}\tau ^{(m)}\chi _A^{(l)}\right\}]+h.c.,`$
where $`g=g_5/\sqrt{2\pi r_c}`$, and the KK expansion in Eqs. (3) and (21) have been substituted. $`C_{nml}^{\overline{f}f^{}W}`$ denotes the coupling of the $`m`$-th and the $`n`$-th fermion states to the $`l`$-th $`W`$ boson in the unit of the SM coupling. It is defined by

$$C_{nml}^{\overline{f}f^{}W}=\sqrt{2\pi }_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\varphi e^\sigma \chi ^{(n)}(\varphi )\chi ^{(m)}(\varphi )\chi _A^{(l)}(\varphi ).$$
(24)
## III Phenomenologically Viable Minimally Extended Model

### III.1 Relaxing the universal bulk fermion mass assumption

Now every SM fermion possesses its KK tower. We remind the reader that in the RS background the fermion KK mass spectrum is determined by the bulk fermion mass $`m_\psi `$. A simple assumption of universal bulk fermion mass results in the same KK mass spectrum for all the SM fermions. The exact degeneracy between the KK masses for the $`T_3=\pm 1/2`$ fermions cancels their contribution to the $`\rho `$ parameter. In addition, the degeneracy among the KK masses of up-type quarks (and down type quarks) allows the GIM cancellation to occur KK-level by level.

However, there is another mass source, Yukawa interaction. This Yukawa mass relates SU(2)–doublet with singlet (e.g., $`m_Y\overline{q}_{uL}u_R`$). It is to be compared to the KK mass which is the coupling of $`\overline{q}_{uL}q_{uR}`$ and $`\overline{u}_Lu_R`$. This difference results in mixing among the fermion KK modes. Since quark masses are much smaller than the KK mass scale, this mixing effect has been neglected in the early study. One exception is the top quark. Its heavy mass yields substantial mixing among top quark KK modes. The mass shift of the top quark KK mode from the rest up-type quark KK modes invalidates the GIM cancellation; FCNC becomes inevitable. More severe problem happens if precision measurements are taken into account. In particular, the $`\rho `$ parameter becomes dangerous since it does not follow the decoupling theorem in the sense that its quantum correction increases with the squared mass difference between the $`T=1/2`$ and $`T=1/2`$ fermions. As each top quark KK mass deviates from the corresponding bottom quark KK mass, their additive contribution yields disastrous and unacceptable value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$. The problem does not ameliorate but worsens as we add more and more KK states Hewett:2002fe .

In Ref. Hewett:2002fe , a ‘mixed’ scenario has been proposed such that the third generation fermions are confined on the TeV brane while the other two generations propagate in the bulk. This construction itself is interesting with the additional attractive feature of its natural explanation for the observed $`m_c/m_t`$ and $`m_s/m_b`$ hierarchies. However, constraints from current precision measurements are rather strong that the first excited KK mode of gauge bosons is about 11 TeV, not leading to any new physics signatures at LHC. In addition, the obvious discrimination of fermions according to generation may lead to potentially dangerous FCNC due to the absence of GIM mechanism: Without a detailed analysis of FCNC effects, Ref. Hewett:2002fe  claimed that the estimated size of KK $`Z`$ boson exchange effects on the $`K\overline{K}`$ mixing is within the uncertainty of the SM results.

Instead, here we keep the original set-up but relax the unsubstantiated assumption of the universal bulk fermion mass. For the simplest extension, we assume that the SU(2)–singlet bottom quark field has different bulk fermion mass $`m_\psi ^{}`$, and see whether this introduction of another parameter can accommodate the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ constraint without a new hierarchy. Then the five dimensional action for the third generation quarks becomes

$`S={\displaystyle \text{d}^4x\text{d}\varphi \sqrt{G}}`$ $`[E_a^A(i\overline{Q}\gamma ^a𝒟_AQ+i\overline{t}\gamma ^a𝒟_At+i\overline{b}\gamma ^a𝒟_Ab)`$
$`\text{sign}(\varphi )(m_\psi \{\overline{Q}Q+\overline{t}t\}+m_\psi ^{}\overline{b}b)].`$
The compactification of the extra dimension leads to the KK mass terms such that

$$=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}k_{EW}\left[x_f^{(n)}(\nu )\left\{\overline{q}_{tL}^{(n)}q_{tR}^{(n)}+\overline{q}_{bL}^{(n)}q_{bR}^{(n)}+\overline{t}_L^{(n)}t_R^{(n)}\right\}+x_f^{(n)}(\nu ^{})\overline{b}_L^{(n)}b_R^{(n)}\right]+h.c.,$$
(26)
where we introduced additional dimensionless parameter $`\nu ^{}=m_\psi ^{}/k`$. As explicitly shown in Eq. (26), the KK masses of fermions depend on the bulk fermion masses, $`m_\psi `$ and $`m_\psi ^{}`$.

### III.2 Mass matrix of the KK modes for the top and bottom quarks

In addition to the KK masses, an observer on the TeV brane has another source for the fermion mass, Yukawa coupling with the Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism should operate here so that KK zero modes of the bulk gauge boson and fermion, which correspond to the SM particles, acquire masses. However, the simplest case with the Higgs boson in the bulk results in some unsatisfactory consequences. First, the lowest mass eigenvalue of the gauge boson, proportional to the bulk mass of the Higgs field, has no suppression by the warp factor Chang:1999nh . The Higgs bulk mass should be much smaller than the Planck mass scale. The gauge hierarchy problem has recurred. Second, the bulk Higgs mechanism cannot retain the correct SM gauge couplings of the photon, $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons if the SM fermions are in the bulk; if the fermions are on the wall, the SM mass relationship of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons is broken Davoudiasl:2000wi . It is concluded that at least one Higgs field must be confined to the TeV brane.

The five-dimensional action for Yukawa interaction with the confined Higgs field is

$`S_{ffH}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^5x\sqrt{G}[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _5^b}{k}}\overline{Q}(x,\varphi )H(x)b(x,\varphi )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _5^t}{k}}ϵ^{ab}\overline{Q}(x,\varphi )_aH(x)_bt(x,\varphi )+h.c.]\delta (\varphi \pi ),`$
where $`\lambda _5^{b,t}`$ is the five-dimensional Yukawa coupling. Spontaneous symmetry breaking shifts the Higgs field as $`H^0v_5+H^{}_{}{}^{}0`$ with a VEV of the order Planck scale. Then the four-dimensional effective Lagrangian becomes

$`_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _tv}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\overline{q}_{tL}^{(0)}+\widehat{\chi }_1\overline{q}_{tL}^{(1)}+\mathrm{}\right)\left(t_R^{(0)}+\widehat{\chi }_1t_R^{(1)}+\mathrm{}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _bv}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\overline{q}_{bL}^{(0)}+\widehat{\chi }_1\overline{q}_{bL}^{(1)}+\mathrm{}\right)\left(b_R^{(0)}+\widehat{\chi }_1^{}b_R^{(1)}+\mathrm{}\right),`$
where $`\lambda _{t,b}=\lambda _5^{t,b}(1+2\nu )/2(1ϵ^{1+2\nu })`$, $`v=ϵv_5`$, $`\widehat{\chi }_n\chi ^{(n)}(\pi ,\nu )/\chi ^{(0)}(\nu )`$, and $`\widehat{\chi }_n^{}`$ are with $`\nu ^{}`$. Note that the right-handed SU(2)–doublet $`q_{tR}^{(n)}`$ and the left-handed SU(2)–singlet $`t_L^{(n)}`$ do not appear in the Yukawa term due to the $`Z_2`$-odd boundary conditions in Eq. (18).

For definite presentation, we introduce the number of the KK states, $`n_{\mathrm{}}`$, which is in principle infinity. Equations (26) and (III.2) imply the mass terms of the KK modes as follows:

$$_{mass}=\left(\overline{t}_R^{(0)}\overline{t}_R^{(1)}\mathrm{}|\overline{q}_{tR}^{(1)}\mathrm{}\right)_t\left(\begin{array}{c}q_{tL}^{(0)}\\ q_{tL}^{(1)}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \\ t_L^{(1)}\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)\left(\overline{b}_R^{(0)}\overline{b}_R^{(1)}\mathrm{}|\overline{q}_{bR}^{(1)}\mathrm{}\right)_b\left(\begin{array}{c}q_{bL}^{(0)}\\ q_{bL}^{(1)}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \\ b_L^{(1)}\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right),$$
(29)
where the $`(2n_{\mathrm{}}+1)\times (2n_{\mathrm{}}+1)`$ matrix $`_{t,b}`$ are defined by

$$_t=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_Y^t& _{KK}^t\\ _{KK}^{q_t}& 0\end{array}\right),_b=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_Y^b& _{KK}^b\\ _{KK}^{q_b}& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(30)
The $`(n_{\mathrm{}}+1)\times (n_{\mathrm{}}+1)`$ matrix $`_Y^{t,b}`$ is from Yukawa mass terms, and the $`(n_{\mathrm{}}+1)\times n_{\mathrm{}}`$ matrix $`_{KK}`$ from KK masses. They are given by

$`_Y^t`$ $`=`$ $`m_{t,0}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& \widehat{\chi }_1& \widehat{\chi }_2& \mathrm{}\\ \widehat{\chi }_1& \widehat{\chi }_1^2& \widehat{\chi }_1\widehat{\chi }_2& \mathrm{}\\ \widehat{\chi }_2& \widehat{\chi }_2\widehat{\chi }_1& \widehat{\chi }_2^2& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \end{array}\right),_Y^b=m_{b,0}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& \widehat{\chi }_1& \widehat{\chi }_2& \mathrm{}\\ \widehat{\chi }_1^{}& \widehat{\chi }_1^{}\widehat{\chi }_1& \widehat{\chi }_1^{}\widehat{\chi }_2& \mathrm{}\\ \widehat{\chi }_2^{}& \widehat{\chi }_2^{}\widehat{\chi }_1& \widehat{\chi }_2^{}\widehat{\chi }_2& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \end{array}\right),`$ (39)
$`_{KK}^{q_t}`$ $`=`$ $`k_{EW}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& x_f^{(1)}& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& x_f^{(2)}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \end{array}\right),_{KK}^b=k_{EW}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ x_f^{(1)}(\nu ^{})& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& x_f^{(2)}(\nu ^{})& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \end{array}\right),`$ (48)
where $`m_{t(b),0}=\lambda _{t(b)}v/\sqrt{2}`$ of electroweak scale, and $`_{KK}^{q_b}=_{KK}^t=_{KK}^{q_t}`$. Note that the bottom-right blocks of $`_{t,b}`$ vanish since there are no Yukawa couplings of $`Z_2`$-odd bulk fermions.

### III.3 Diagonalization of up-type quark KK mass matrix

Let us discuss the diagonalization of the $`_{u,c,t}`$ in detail. This shows generic features of KK mode mixing in the RS scenario, as well as being relevant for the $`bs\gamma `$ decay. Since even in the modified model all the up-type quark fields have the same bulk fermion mass, $`_{u(c)}`$ is the same as $`_t`$ with the replacement of $`m_{t,0}`$ by $`m_{u(c),0}`$, collectively denoted by $`_q`$. A real and symmetric matrix $`_q`$ is diagonalized by an orthogonal matrix $`𝒩`$:

$$\mathrm{diag}(\eta _0,\eta _1,\mathrm{})𝒩_q𝒩^T=\mathrm{diag}(m_q,M_1,M_2,\mathrm{}),$$
(49)
where $`\eta _j=\pm 1`$ is introduced for the positive-definite mass. $`q_{uL}^{(n)}`$ and $`u_L^{(n)}`$ form $`(2n_{\mathrm{}}+1)`$ left-handed mass eigenstates $`u_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\underset{¯}{j})}`$

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}\\ u_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\\ u_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)=𝒩\left(\begin{array}{c}q_{uL}^{(0)}\\ q_{uL}^{(1)}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \\ u_L^{(1)}\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right).$$
(50)
For example, $`q_{uL}^{(n)}`$ is a mixture of KK mass eigenstates $`u_{}^{}{}_{L}{}^{(\underset{¯}{j})}`$

$$q_{uL}^{(n)}=\underset{\underset{¯}{j}=0}{\overset{2n_{\mathrm{}}}{}}𝒩_{(\underset{¯}{j},n)}u_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\underset{¯}{j})},(n=0,\mathrm{},n_C).$$
(51)
In what follows, the underlined index runs from zero to $`2n_{\mathrm{}}`$. In terms of mass eigenstates, the four-dimensional effective Lagrangian of the charged current, relevant for the FCNC, is

$$=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}V_{tb}\left(\underset{m=0}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{}}}{}}C_{0ml}^{btW}𝒩_{(\underset{¯}{j},m)}\right)\overline{b}_L^{(0)}\gamma ^\mu t_L^{{}_{}{}^{}(\underset{¯}{j})}W_\mu ^{(l)}+h.c..$$
(52)
Now let us discuss the diagonalization of $`_q`$. For light quarks ($`m_{q,0}=0`$), $`_q`$ can be analytically diagonalized. Mass eigenvalues are

$$m_q^{(0)}=0,M_n^{(0)}=M_{n_{\mathrm{}}+n}^{(0)}=x_f^{(n)}k_{EW},$$
(53)
which are obtained by the orthonormal matrix $`𝒩^{(0)}`$:

$`𝒩_{(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})}^{(0)}=1,𝒩_{(0,\underset{¯}{n})}^{(0)}=𝒩_{(\underset{¯}{n},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})}^{(0)}=0,𝒩_{(n,m)}^{(0)}=𝒩_{(n_{\mathrm{}}+n,m)}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{nm}}{\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (54)
For top quark with non-negligible $`m_{t,0}`$, the diagonalization of $`_q`$ is not trivial. Since $`m_{t,0}`$ is approximately the top quark mass of 175 GeV while the KK fermion masses are of the order TeV, the diagonalization can be made perturbatively unless $`\widehat{\chi }_n^2`$’s are much larger than unity. In Fig. 1, we present the values of $`\widehat{\chi }_n`$ which are very sensitive to $`\nu `$: The solid line is for $`\widehat{\chi }_{2n1}`$ and the dashed line is for $`\widehat{\chi }_{2n}`$ $`(n=1,2,\mathrm{})`$. Note that $`\widehat{\chi }^{(n)}`$ does not depend on $`k_{EW}`$. For $`\nu <0.4`$, $`|\widehat{\chi }_n|`$ rapidly increases so that the elements of $`_Y`$ can be compatible or even larger than some elements of $`_{KK}`$: Diagonalization is to be made only numerically.

For $`\nu >0.3`$, $`m_{t,0}/k_{EW}`$ is a good perturbation parameter, denoted by $`\delta `$. To leading order in $`\delta `$, the mass eigenvalues are

$$m_q=m_0,M_n=k_{EW}\left(x_f^{(n)}+\frac{\widehat{\chi }_n^2}{2}\delta \right),M_{n_{\mathrm{}}+n}=k_{EW}\left(x_f^{(n)}\frac{\widehat{\chi }_n^2}{2}\delta \right),$$
(55)
and the elements of the orthonormal matrix $`𝒩`$ are parameterized by

$$𝒩_{(\underset{¯}{n},\underset{¯}{m})}𝒩_{(\underset{¯}{n},\underset{¯}{m})}^{(0)}+𝒩_{(\underset{¯}{n},\underset{¯}{m})}^{(1)}\frac{\delta }{\sqrt{2}},$$
(56)
where

$`𝒩_{(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})}^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`0,𝒩_{(0,n)}^{(1)}0,𝒩_{}^{(1)}{}_{(n,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})}{}^{}𝒩_{(n_{\mathrm{}}+n,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})}^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\chi }_n^2}{x_f^{(n)}}},`$ (57)
$`𝒩_{}^{(1)}{}_{(n,n)}{}^{}`$ $``$ $`𝒩_{(n_{\mathrm{}}+n,n)}^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\chi }_n^2}{4x_f^{(n)}}},`$
$`𝒩_{}^{(1)}{}_{(n,m)}{}^{}`$ $``$ $`𝒩_{}^{(1)}{}_{(n_{\mathrm{}}+n,m)}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{x_f^{(n)}\widehat{\chi }_n\widehat{\chi }_m}{\sqrt{2}(x_f^{(n)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}x_f^{(m)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}}\text{for}(nm).`$
## IV Constraints from the $`\rho `$ parameter

The $`\rho `$ parameter is defined by the difference between the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ boson self-energy functions re-scaled by each mass:

$$\rho =\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_W(q^2=0)}{m_W^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_Z(q^2=0)}{m_Z^2}.$$
(58)
It has been known to play a special role among precision measurements since it is sensitive to heavy fermions beyond SM: Its quantum correction increases with the mass difference between two constituent fermions of SU(2)–doublet. A SU(2)–doublet $`(f_u,f_d)^T`$ yields additional contribution to $`\rho `$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =\frac{N_cG_F}{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,$$
(59)
where $`N_c`$ is the number of colors and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2m_u^2+m_d^2\frac{4m_u^2m_d^2}{m_u^2m_d^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_u}{m_d}.$$
(60)
We denote masses of $`f_u`$ and $`f_d`$ fermions as $`m_u`$ and $`m_d`$, respectively. As can be seen from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ in two limiting cases,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\{\begin{array}{cc}m_u^2\hfill & \text{ for }m_um_d\hfill \\ (m_um_d)^2\hfill & \text{ for }m_um_d\hfill \end{array},$$
(61)
the contribution of any degenerate SU(2)–doublet to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ vanishes. With the Higgs mass below 1 TeV, the current electroweak precision data constrain $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho <2\times 10^3`$ at 95% CL (with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \rho \rho _{\mathrm{SM}}`$), which restricts new SU(2)–doublet fermion mass spectrum to satisfy PDG

$$\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Delta }m_i^2(115\text{GeV})^2.$$
(62)
First let us demonstrate that the RS-bulk SM with the universal bulk fermion mass assumption ($`\nu =\nu ^{}`$) cannot satisfy this $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ constraint. Now that every SM fermion has its KK tower, we have various vacuum polarization graphs mediated by the fermion KK modes for the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ self energies. Since involved couplings incorporate the zero-mode of gauge boson KK modes, the simple relation of $`C_{nm0}^{ff^{}A}=\delta _{nm}`$ allows us to ignore the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ between different KK levels, to leading order. For degenerate top and bottom quark KK modes, i.e., for $`|M_t^{(n)}M_b^{(n)}|M_t^{(n)}`$, we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\underset{n}{}(M_t^{(n)}M_b^{(n)})^2.$$
(63)
Figure 2 presents the KK masses for (a) the top and (b) bottom quarks. Here we set $`kr_c=11.5`$, $`k_{EW}=1`$ TeV and the zero mode top quark mass to be 175 GeV and the zero mode bottom quark mass $`4.5`$ GeV. As $`\nu `$ increases, the mass of an odd mode ($`n=1,3,\mathrm{}`$) approaches that of the corresponding even mode ($`n=2,4,\mathrm{}`$). For the bottom quark case, two KK modes are almost degenerate in most of the relevant parameter space. This is because of the small $`m_{b,0}`$ compared to $`k_{EW}`$. These different mass spectra for the top and bottom quark KK modes lead to dangerous contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$.

In Fig. 3, we show top and bottom KK mass differences up to the fifth KK excitation states as a function of parameter $`\nu `$. Even though the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ decreases with $`\nu `$, it is too large to satisfy Eq. (62).

Now let us allow $`\nu \nu ^{}`$ and see whether there exists a parameter space where the degeneracy between the top and bottom quark KK modes is retained. We need large mixing among the bottom quark KK modes so that the rapid increase of $`M_b^{(1)}`$ in Fig. 2 can be slowed down. As discussed before, large mixing occurs with large negative $`\nu ^{}`$. In Fig. 4, we shows, with the fixed $`\nu ^{}=0.6`$, the top-bottom quark mass differences for the first five excited modes. We find that for example the $`\nu =0.39`$ case with $`\nu ^{}=0.6`$ gives vanishing mass differences below 20 GeV for the first five KK excited states. A remarkable point is that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ decreases for higher KK modes; the contribution of higher KK modes becomes less important.

## V Constraints from $`BX_s\gamma `$ decay

It is well known that any kind of new physics beyond the SM is significantly constrained by flavor changing neutral current (FCNC), which the SM predicts to be suppressed at one loop level by light quark masses relative to $`M_W`$ and by small CKM mixing between the third and first two generations. In particular, the rare decay of $`BX_s\gamma `$ has been extensively studied within and beyond the SM Greub:1997hf . Moreover, this decay mode is sensitive to the top quark sector, appropriate to probe any new physics related with top quark. The inclusive decay $`BX_s\gamma `$ is approximated by the partonic decay $`bs\gamma `$ with the following equality:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_s\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_ce\overline{\nu }_e)}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bs\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bce\overline{\nu }_e)}R_{\mathrm{quark}}.$$
(64)
With the NLO QCD corrections, $`R_{\mathrm{quark}}`$ is Buras:1998ra

$$R_{\mathrm{quark}}=\frac{\lambda _t^2}{|V_{cb}|^2}\frac{6\alpha }{\pi f(z)}F(z)\left(|D(m_b)|^2+A\right),$$
(65)
where $`zm_{c,pole}^2/m_{b,pole}^2`$ and

$`f(z)`$ $`=`$ $`18z^2+8z^3z^412z^2\mathrm{ln}z,`$ (66)
$`F(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa (z)}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\pi }}\right).`$
The CKM factor is denoted by $`\lambda _iV_{ib}^{}V_{is}(i=u,c,t)`$. The bremsstrahlung corrections and the necessary virtual corrections, in order to cancel the infrared divergence, are included in the term $`A`$ Chetyrkin:1996vx .

### V.1 Effects of the RS-bulk SM

In the RS-bulk SM the $`bs\gamma `$ decay receives new contribution from the KK modes of the bulk $`W`$ gauge boson and up-type quarks. As discussed before, the new contribution to FCNC occurs since the degeneracy in the KK modes of up-type quarks is broken due to the top quark Yukawa coupling. We also point out that the effects of the RS-bulk SM on FCNC have complicated and distinct features compared to those of other extra dimensional models. For instance, in the models with universal flat extra dimensions accessible to all the SM fields, the conservation of extra dimensional momentum leads to the so-called KK number conservation Uni-ph , which says that no single KK excited mode can be produced. This reduces the computation of its contribution to FCNC Agashe:2001xt . In the RS-bulk SM, however, non-trivial geometry does not respect this KK number conservation with which, e.g., $`C_{00n}^{ff^{}W}`$ would vanish for $`n0`$. Furthermore, in universal flat extra dimensions the bulk wave functions of bulk fermions are the same as those of bulk gauge bosons. The orthonormal conditions for the bulk wave functions simplify three-point couplings so that $`C_{0nm}^{ff^{}W}(\text{flat})=\delta _{nm}`$. In the RS model, the bulk fermions have different bulk wave functions, sensitively dependent on the bulk fermion mass $`m_\psi `$. Non-trivial three-point couplings become involved.

Note that all the external particles are SM particles, i.e., zero modes of the bulk fields. Since $`\chi _A^{(0)}`$, the bulk wave function of the photon zero mode, is constant, the orthonormal conditions in Eqs. (7) and (13) imply

$$C_{nm0}^{WWA}=\delta _{nm},C_{nm0}^{f\overline{f}A}=\delta _{nm}.$$
(67)
Thus the contribution via the $`n`$-th up-type quark and the $`m`$-th $`W`$ boson is the same as the SM result except for the internal mass and the additional three-point coupling.

With a given $`W^{(l)}`$, the contributions of all the KK modes of massless up and charm quarks to $`(\lambda _u+\lambda _c)D`$ in Eq. (65) are

$$(\lambda _u+\lambda _c)\left(\frac{m_W}{M_W^{(l)}}\right)^2\underset{\underset{¯}{i}=0}{\overset{2n_{\mathrm{}}}{}}\left(\underset{m}{}C_{0ml}^{buW}𝒩_{(\underset{¯}{i},m)}^{(0)}\right)^2D(x_{(\underset{¯}{i},l)}^u)=\lambda _t\left(\frac{m_W}{M_W^{(l)}}\right)^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{}}}{}}\left(C_{0jl}^{buW}\right)^2D(x_{(\underset{¯}{i},l)}^u),$$
(68)
where $`x_{(\underset{¯}{i},l)}^q\left(M_q^{(\underset{¯}{i})}/M_W^{(l)}\right)^2.`$ For the equality in Eq. (68), we have employed the unitarity condition of the CKM matrix $`(\lambda _u+\lambda _c+\lambda _t=0)`$ and the exact expressions for $`𝒩^{(0)}`$ in Eq. (54). In summary, the contribution of all the KK modes of bulk gauge bosons and up-type quarks is taken into account by the following replacement:

$`D(x_{(0,0)}^t)D^{RS}`$ $``$ $`[{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{}}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\underset{¯}{j}=0}{\overset{2n_{\mathrm{}}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_W}{M_W^{(l)}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{}}}{}}}C_{0ml}^{buW}𝒩_{(\underset{¯}{j},m)}\right)^2D(x_{(\underset{¯}{j},l)}^t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j,l=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{}}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_W}{M_W^{(l)}}}\right)^2\left(C_{0jl}^{buW}\right)^2D(x_{(j,l)}^{(0)})].`$
In the limit where the elements of $`_Y`$ are much smaller than those of $`_{KK}`$ ($`\nu >0.3`$), the substitution of Eqs. (55) and (57) into(V.1) yields, to leading order in $`\delta `$,

$`D(x_{(0,0)}^t)`$ $``$ (70)
$`D^{RS}`$ $``$ $`D(x_{(0,0)}^t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{}}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{}}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_W}{M_W^{(l)}}}\right)^2[\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{}}}{}}}C_{0ml}^{buW}({\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{jm}}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n_{(j,m)}}{\sqrt{2}}}\delta )\right\}^2D(x_{(j,l)}^{(0)}+\widehat{\chi }_j^2x_{(j,l)}^{(0)}\delta /x_f^{(j)})`$
$`+\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{}}}{}}}C_{0ml}^{buW}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{jm}}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n_{(n_{\mathrm{}}+j,m)}}{\sqrt{2}}}\delta \right)\right\}^2D\left(x_{u(j,l)}^{(0)}\widehat{\chi }_j^2x_{u(j,l)}^{(0)}\delta /x_f^{(j)}\right)`$
$`(C_{0jl}^{buW})^2D\left(x_{(j,l)}^{(0)}\right)]`$
$`=`$ $`D(x_{(0,0)}^t)+𝒪(\delta ^2),`$
where we have used the approximation of

$$x_{(j,l)}^tx_{(j,l)}^{(0)}\left(1+\widehat{\chi }_j^2/x_f^{(j)}\right),x_{(n_{\mathrm{}}+j,l)}^tx_{(j,l)}^{(0)}\left(1\widehat{\chi }_j^2/x_f^{(j)}\right).$$
(71)
We conclude that in the limit where the Yukawa masses are smaller than the KK masses, the effect of the RS-bulk SM on the $`Br(BX_s\gamma )`$ vanishes to leading order.

### V.2 Numerical Results

Since the new parameter $`m_\psi ^{}`$, introduced to satisfy the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ constraint, does not affect the $`bs\gamma `$ decay, three parameters of $`m_{t,0}`$, $`k_{EW}`$ and $`\nu `$ determine the contributions to $`bs\gamma `$ completely. First let us check whether the contributions to $`bs\gamma `$ converge as we add more and more KK modes of $`W`$ boson and up-type quarks. It is useful to introduce the cut-off on the number of the KK states, denoted by $`n_C`$, and check the sensitivity of $`D^{RS}`$ in Eq. (V.1) to $`n_C`$. $`D(m_b)`$ is obtained by matching Wilson coefficients at electroweak scale and the subsequent RGE running. For the SM contribution the matching is performed at the next-to-leading order (NLO) while for the RS-bulk SM effects it is done at leading order. Then $`D^{RS}`$ gets the effects from KK mode through $`C_7^{RS}`$. With the formula of Eq. (V.1), we numerically compute $`C_7^{RS}`$ as a function of $`n_C`$. In principle we should diagonalize an infinite dimensional matrix $`_t`$ to obtain its mass eigenstates and mixing matrix. In reality of numerical calculation, however, this is not possible. Instead we take a large finite number $`n_{\mathrm{}}`$, and truncate the contributions of KK modes at $`n_C(<n_{\mathrm{}})`$.

Figure 5 shows $`C_7^{RS}`$ with the RS-bulk SM effects as a function of $`n_C`$ for $`kr_c=11.5,\nu =0.3`$, $`k_{EW}=10`$ TeV, and $`m_{t,0}=200`$ GeV. The dashed line is for $`n_{\mathrm{}}=50`$, the dashed-dotted line for $`n_{\mathrm{}}=100`$, and the dotted line for $`n_{\mathrm{}}=200`$. Numerical diagonalization of a large dimensional matrix is performed by a FORTRAN package LAPACK LAPACK . It is clear that the $`C_7^{RS}`$ is well behaved even with extremely many KK modes of $`W`$ boson and up-type quarks. We note that this converging behavior is mainly due to the suppression from the $`W`$ boson KK masses. Without the factor $`\left(m_W/M_W^{(l)}\right)^2`$ in Eqs. (V.1), for example, $`C_7^{RS}`$ at $`n=n_C=50`$ would not converge but keep decreasing with the value of order -0.5. In fact the RS-bulk SM effects on the precision electroweak observables Davoudiasl:2000wi , and on the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon Davoudiasl:2000my  have been also shown finite. In what follows we employ $`n_{\mathrm{}}=`$ 100 and $`n_C=`$ 50.

In Fig. 6, we present phenomenological constraints on $`(k_{EW},m_{t,0})`$ plane for $`\nu =0.4`$ as suggested by the previous $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ constraint. The solid lines come from the observed top quark mass of $`175\pm 5`$ GeV. For large $`k_{EW}`$ of a few TeV, $`m_{t,0}`$ itself is the physical mass of the top quark, while low $`k_{EW}`$ of the order 100 GeV allows considerably high $`m_0`$. We notice that the observed top quark mass alone can put a significant lower bound on $`k_{EW}`$ such as $`k_{EW}>310`$ GeV for $`\nu =0.4`$. Taking a step further, let us investigate the implication of the first excited KK mode of top quark, albeit unobserved yet. As an example, we present the condition, denoted by the dashed lines, that the first excited KK mode of top quark has mass about 1 TeV, which removes most of the parameter space with low $`k_{EW}`$ and high $`m_0`$. The current data on Br($`BX_s+\gamma )`$ Buras:1998ra  are also presented with the doted lines at one sigma level, and the dot-dashed lines at two sigma level. It shows that the modified RS-bulk SM can also accommodate the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint. At one sigma level, the $`bs\gamma `$ decay, with the constraint from the observed top quark mass, can impose strong lower bound on $`k_{EW}`$: $`k_{EW}>700`$ GeV for $`\nu =0.4`$; these correspond to the $`M_1^{\mathrm{top}}1`$ TeV. This bound is to be compared with the constraints from the Drell-Yan and dijet production at the Tevatron Run I, with the oblique parameter constraints, which put the lower bound on $`m_{graviton}^{(1)}>750`$ GeV Hewett:2002fe . Since $`m_{graviton}^{(1)}3.83k_{EW}`$, this Tevetron bound is rather weak as $`k_{EW}>196`$ GeV.

Some comments on the $`D`$-meson mixing is in order here. Since our assignment of different bulk fermion mass for the SU(2)-singlet $`b`$-quark yields different KK mass spectrum of the $`b`$-quark from those of the strange- and down-quark, we may encounter sizable FCNC in the up-quark sector. Further investigation is to be done. However, considering the current low accuracy on the $`D`$-meson mixing measurement CLEO-D , and the role of $`W`$ boson KK mass spectrum in suppressing and thus stabilizing the new contribution to $`bs\gamma `$ due to the factor $`\left(m_W/M_W^{(l)}\right)^2`$, we expect that the new effects on the $`D`$-meson mixing is also likely to be acceptable.

## VI Conclusions

We have studied the quark Kaluza-Klein mode mixing in the Randall-Sundrum scenario where all the SM fields except for the Higgs field are placed in the bulk. This KK mode mixing occurs due to the Yukawa masses of the bulk fermion with the Higgs field confined to our brane. We have reviewed in detail the KK reduction of the bulk Dirac fermion field in the RS background. In order to obtain non-trivial solution of the bulk wave functions, a Dirac fermion with a definite hypercharge should possess both chiral states. That is, there must be additional right-handed SU(2)–doublet and left-handed SU(2)–singlet fermions which are to be assigned $`Z_2`$-odd symmetry to avoid their zero modes on our brane. It is explicitly shown that the KK mass terms are between the left- and right-handed chiral states of a specific representation while Yukawa couplings relate the SU(2)–doublet and SU(2)–singlet. For the top quark of non-negligible Yukawa mass, this mismatch between KK mass matrix and Yukawa mass matrix generates the mixing among the KK modes of the top quark.

Immediate problems of this top quark KK mode mixing are their dangerous effect on the $`\rho `$ parameter and the FCNC. We have shown that in the minimal model with a common bulk fermion mass, quite large mass shifts between the top and bottom quark KK modes are generated, resulting in disastrous contribution to the $`\rho `$ parameter. The minimal model is to be extended. We relax the universal bulk fermion mass, and let the SU(2)–singlet bottom quark field have a different bulk fermion mass $`m_\psi ^{}`$. It is shown that for example if $`m_\psi ^{}/k0.6`$ and $`m_\psi /k0.4`$, the degeneracy of the top and bottom quark KK mode is good enough to suppress the new contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$. Moreover, the higher the KK mode is, the better the degeneracy becomes; the contribution of higher KK modes becomes less important. Explicit calculation of the mass eigenvalues and mixing matrix of top quark KK modes shows some generic features. For $`\nu >0.3`$ the mixing is small such that the diagonalization can be made perturbatively; their contribution to the rare decay $`bs\gamma `$ vanishes to leading order. For $`\nu <0.4`$ the mixing is sizable: The diagonalization was performed numerically. We have demonstrated that even in this case the new effects on the $`bs\gamma `$ can be computed with high reliability. The current measurement of Br($`BX_s+\gamma )`$ is well accommodated in the modified RS-bulk model. If the future experiment probes the Br($`BX_s+\gamma )`$ at the current one sigma level, this rare decay mode, with the observed top quark mass, can put indirect and meaningful bounds on $`k_{EW}`$ such as $`k_{EW}>3`$ TeV for $`\nu =0.4`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank G. Cvetic, H.D. Kim and Y.Y. Keum for valuable discussions. The work of C.S.K. was supported in part by CHEP-SRC Program, Grant No. 20015-111-02-2 and Grant No. R02-2002-000-00168-0 from BRP of the KOSEF, in part by BK21 Program and Grant No. 2001-042-D00022 of the KRF. The work of J.D.K. was supported by Grant No. 2001-042-D00022 of the KRF. The work of J.S. was supported by Grant No. R02-2002-000-00168-0 from BRP of the KOSEF.