arXiv:0902.0628v3 [hep-ph] 20 Aug 2009 nhne if unchanged suethat assume xeso fteS ya xr clrsnltwsas icse n[2], in problem. discussed hierarchy also the was with singlet cope scalar to extra adopted an by was SM the of extension 1 sdmntdb h emoi tp em,tems cnmcwa economic most the terms, (top) fermionic the ϕ by dominated is (1) rmaayi foeaoso i eur Λ require 6 dim of operators of analysis from which h clrdult(Mlgrtmccretosaesalsnew ass we since small are corrections logarithmic (SM doublet scalar the hr saU uo w s uo euaiain and regularization) cutoff a use (we cutoff UV a is Λ where h udai iegneo h ig oo as ti aua oc to natural is it tha mass, field boson extensions new Higgs a those the higher-dimensio of only of divergence effects consider quadratic the the on will comment su we will the we so (below all interactions SM, retaining while the ameliorated to is corrections problem hierarchy little the which neetv hoyvldblwtepyia uo ,tesaea whic at scale the Λ, cutoff physical the below valid theory effective an orcin htprilycne 1,a sdn nsupersymmetric in done is as (1), cancel partially that corrections 120 ewl osdracaso oetetnin yadn eea real several energies adding renormalizable, to although by so up consider, valid extensions to we theory serve modest extension low-energy can of The that class group. mass a gauge boson consider Higgs will the we to corrections radiative asi ie by given is mass cl) or scale); δ ( i SM h otgnrlsaa oeta ossetwith consistent potential scalar general most The hr r w ast ov hspolm n dsnwprilswho particles new adds one problem: this solve to ways two are There ic rcso esrmns(anyfo h oblique the from (mainly measurements precision Since h iteheacyproblem hierarchy little The eew olwtefis taey u ihamds ol econstr we goal: modest a with but strategy, first the follow we Here Introduction hs -opcnrbtosblne h nsdrvdfo h SM. the from derived ones the balances contributions 1-loop whose − ) m 7 e,tecreto 1 xed h asisl vnfrsmall for even itself mass the exceeds (1) correction the GeV, 170 δm h 2 h 2 (ii) ≃ ϕ tettlcreto oteS ig oo assurd ssupp is squared) mass boson Higgs SM the to correction total (the m h ag-nain coupling gauge-invariant the , opigo h e clr otesadr ig oo utb must boson Higgs standard 1 the the to in scalars be realistic should new provide the and of problem coupling hierarchy little the liorate be ewrs iteheacypolm ag ige,dr ma dark singlet, gauge problem, hierarchy 95.35.+d little 95.30.Cq, Keywords: 13.15.+g, 12.60.Fr, numbers: wit PACS consistent rea are surprisingly angles and mixing realistic and oscillations. to spectrum leads mass also neutrino singlets the of eateto hsc n srnm,Uiest fCalifor of University Astronomy, and of Department ϕ nraetealwdvleof value allowed the increase h i nttt fTertclPyis nvriyo asw Ho Warsaw, of University Physics, Theoretical of Institute h 2 eso htteadto fra clr guesnlt)to singlets) (gauge scalars real of addition the that show We ϕ > r igesudrteS ag ru.I ste ayt e htt that see to easy then is It group. gauge SM the under singlets are ∼ i led o Λ for already h olo hspoeti opoietems cnmcetnino extension economic most the provide to is project this of goal The i e,dpnigo h ig oo asadtenme fsing of number the and mass boson Higgs the on depending TeV, 5 wihw suehratr,s htteS rdcino light a of prediction SM the that so hereafter), assume we (which 0 = rgai praht h iteheacyproblem hierarchy little the to approach Pragmatic δ h aefrDr atradnurn hsc - physics neutrino and Matter Dark for case the - ( − SM ≃ e ag,wietelws uo fte(npcfid Vcom UV (unspecified) the of cutoff lowest the while range, TeV 3 ihnteS h udaial iegn -opcreto oteHig the to correction 1-loop divergent quadratically the SM the Within ) 8 e.O h te adcntanso h cl fnwphysics new of scale the on constraints hand other the On GeV. 580 m h 2 = ∼  5 3 m m | − ϕ odnGRZADKOWSKI Bohdan h t 2 | 0TV esalntdsusteU opeino hsmodel. this of completion UV the discuss not shall we TeV; 10 > 2 ∼ / ycneigtecnrbtosto contributions the canceling by H 2 e e.Ti iclyi nw steltl irrh problem. hierarchy little the as known is difficulty This TeV. few − † H o´ WUDKA Jos´e (6 (where m Z W 2 2 ( i ) 3 + needn symmetries independent T H m obl v eoe h Msaa obe)wl eeaeadditional generate will doublet) scalar SM the denotes Z 2 tr neutrinos tter, ≃ ) aaee 1] eur ih ig boson, Higgs light a require [10]) parameter / akMte addts oti n,the end, this To candidates. Matter Dark † nie xesoso h clrsco:we adding when sector: scalar the of extensions onsider 4 e eoe h aumepcainvleof value expectation vacuum the denotes GeV 246 8 hnurn hsc.Tersliglight resulting The physics. neutrino ch ilsilb nesodt osiuea effective an constitute to understood be still will − a neatos.Snew ocnrt ntaming on concentrate we Since interactions). nal tnteltl irrh rbe.I hspaper this In problem. hierarchy little the ften hois(o which (for theories ume faheigti sb nrdcn e scalars new introducing by is this achieving of y neatwt h Mtruhrenormalizable through SM the with interact t z 9 L0-8 asw Poland Warsaw, PL-00-681 69, ˙za i,RvrieC 22-43 USA 92521-0413, CA Riverside nia, e hsc eoe manifest. becomes physics new h 3 h osrit rmteneutrino the from constraints the h clrfilswihaenurludrteSM the under neutral are which fields scalar hr oee cascl ofra symmetry conformal (classical) however there m ∗ h tnadMdlcnbt ame- both can Model Standard the auso ,eg for e.g. Λ, of values nodrntt pi h Mpeitoswe predictions SM the spoil to not order In c ipemdfiaino h Mwithin SM the of modification simple a uct eaieysrn n hi mass their and strong relatively e h 2 v cse fteS.W ou eeo leading on here focus We SM. the of ccesses / ≪ 8  esdol pt Λ to up only ressed eeet either effects se Λ Λ espeet h existence The present. lets T 2 < ∼ / obl ( 0TV;teS stetdhr as here treated is SM the TeV); 10 π eolqeprmtr ilremain will parameters oblique he rmahayHgs(e ..[1]). e.g. (see Higgs heavy a from ϕ 2 v h tnadMdl(M for (SM) Model Standard the f i 2 − → (1) ) δm m h 2 ϕ lto must pletion ig speevd An preserved. is Higgs h ≪ i (i) 3 e eobtain we GeV 130 = ipsdi re to order in (imposed m < ∼ eeaeradiative generate h 2 3 − pt h GUT the to up UCRHEP-T463 0TV Since TeV. 10 sbsn( boson gs htemerge that IFT-09-01 m h h ∼ ) 2 prevent ϕ hh decays) reads: i → N N N ϕ 1 ϕ ϕ V (H, ϕ )= µ2 H 2 + λ H 4 + (µ(i))2ϕ2 + λ(ij)ϕ2ϕ2 + H 2 λ(i)ϕ2 (2) i − H | | H | | X ϕ i 24 X ϕ i j | | X x i i=1 i,j=1 i=1

(i) (ij) (i) In the following numerical computations we assume for simplicity that µϕ = µϕ, λϕ = λϕ and λx = λx, in which case (2) has an O(Nϕ) symmetry (small deviations from this assumption do not change our results qualitatively). 2 The minimum of V is at H = v/√2 and ϕi = 0 when µϕ > 0 and λx, λH > 0 which we now assume. The masses h i h i 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 for the SM and the new scalar singlets are mh =2µH and m =2µϕ + λxv (λH v = µH ), respectively. 2 Stability (positivity) of the potential at large field strengths requires λH λϕ > 6λx at tree level. The high energy unitarity behavior (known [3] for Nϕ = 1) implies λH 4π/3 (the SM requirement) and λϕ 8π, λx < 4π. Note however that these conditions are derived from the behavior≤ of the theory at energies E m, where≤ we don’t pretend our model to be valid, so that neither the stability limit nor the unitarity constraints≫ are applicable within our pragmatic strategy 1 that aims at a modest increase of Λ to the 3 10 TeV range. 2− 2 The presence of ϕi generates additional radiative corrections to mh. However different ways of imposing the cutoff Λ (cutoff regularization, higher-derivative regulators, Pauli-Villars regulators, etc.) yield different expressions for the extra corrections; for large Λ, the coefficients of the Λ2 and m2 ln(Λ2/m2) terms are universal, but but the sub-leading, terms are not. Since the sub-leading contributions are small for m Λ (this is the range interesting for us) the differences between various regularization schemes are not relevant. Here≪ we decided to adopt the simple UV 2 cutoff regularization. Then the extra contribution to mh read

δ(ϕ)m2 = [N λ /(8π2)] Λ2 m2 ln 1+Λ2/m2 (3) h − ϕ x  −  2 (SM) 2 (ϕ) 2 2 Adopting the parameterization δmh = δ mh + δ mh = Dtmh [1], we can determine the value of λx needed to 2 | | | | suppress δmh to a desired level (Dt) as a function of m, for any choice of mh and Λ; examples are plotted in fig.1 for 3 Nϕ = 6. It should be noted that (in contrast to SUSY ) the logarithmic terms in (3) can be relevant in canceling 8 TeV 12 TeV 16 TeV 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 x x x

Λ 0.6 Λ 0.6 Λ 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 m @TeVD m @TeVD m @TeVD

FIG. 1: Plot of λx corresponding to Dt = 0 and Nϕ = 6 as a function of m for Λ = 8, 12, 16 TeV (as indicated above each panel). The various curves correspond to mh = 130, 150, 170, 190, 210, 230 GeV (starting with the uppermost curve).

2 large contributions to δmh. It is important to note that the required value of λx is smaller for larger mh, and can also be reduced increasing the number of singlets N . When m Λ, the λ needed for the amelioration of the hierarchy ϕ ≪ x problem is insensitive to m, Dt or Λ; as illustrated in fig.1; analytically we find

λ = N −1 4.8 3(m /v)2 +2D [2π/(Λ/ TeV)]2 1 m2/Λ2 ln m2/Λ2 + m4/Λ4 . (4) x ϕ  − h t  −  O 

1 These conclusions remain even if one includes higher-dimensional operators since such terms are subdominant unless the energies and/or field strengths are of order Λ – were the model is not valid; such operators can also generate spurious minima, but these have scale ∼ Λ and are not within the range of validity of the model. It is also fair to note that for Nϕ = 1 the stability limit for mh > 115 GeV 2 > < implies λϕ > 12(λxv/mh) ∼55λx. Then using λϕ ≤ 8π we find λx ∼0.68; this does not allow for a significant cancellation of the SM contributions (1) and the little remains. Increasing Nϕ suppresses λx and relaxes the unitarity constrains. 2 The Λ2 corrections to m2 can also be tamed within the full model with additiona fine tuning, but we will not consider them here, see [4]. The advantage of the present model is that this tuning allows small corrections to m, mH while keeping them below the cutoff. 3 Note that in SUSY the corresponding logarithmic stop contributions survive and constitute a source of concern. 3

Since we consider λ 1, it is pertinent to estimate the effects of higher order corrections [5] to (1). In general, the x ∼ fine tunning condition reads (mh was chosen as a renormalization scale):

δ(SM)m2 + δ(ϕ)m2 +Λ2 f (λ ,...) [ln(Λ/m )]n = D m2 , (5) | h h X n x h | t h n=1 where the coefficients fn(λx,...) can be determined recursively [5], with the leading contributions being generated 2 n+1 by loops containing powers of λx: fn(λx,...) [λx/(16π )] . To estimate these effects consider the case where (SM) 2 (ϕ) 2 ∼ 2 2 2 2 δ mh + δ mh = 0 at one loop then, keeping only terms λx, we find, at 2 loops, Dt [Nϕλx/(16π )] (Λ/mh) . 2 ∝ ≃ Requiring Dt < 1 implies Λ< 4π mh 5 8 TeV for mh = 130 210 GeV, respectively. It should be∼ emphasized∼ that in the≃ model− proposed here the− hierarchy problem is softened (by lifting the cutoff to 8 TeV) only if λx, Λ and m are appropriately fine-tuned; this fine tuning, however, is significantly less dramatic than∼ in the SM. One can investigate this issue quantitatively and determine the range of parameters that corresponds to a given level of fine-tuning as in [6]; we will return to this in a future publication [4]. Dark matter The singlets ϕi also provide a natural dark-matter (DM) candidates (see [7], [8] for the one singlet case). Following [9] one can easily estimate the amount of the present DM abundance; we will assume for simplicity that all the ϕi are equally abundant (e.g. as in the O(Nϕ) limit). The thermal averaged cross-section for singlet annihilations into SM final states ϕ ϕ SMSM in the non-relativistic approximation, and for m m , equals i i → ≫ h λ2 λ2 v2Γ (2m) 1.73 λ2 σ v x + x h x (6) h i i≃ 8πm2 8m5 ≃ 8π m2 where the first contribution is from the hh final state (keeping only the s-channel Higgs exchange; the t and u channels can be neglected since m mh) while the second contribution is from all other final states; Γh(2m) 0.48 TeV(2m/1 TeV)3 is the Higgs width≫ calculated when the Higgs boson mass equal 2m. ≃ From this the freeze-out temperature xf = m/Tf is given by

x = ln 0.038m m σ v /(g x )1/2 (7) f h Pl h i i ⋆ f i where g⋆ counts relativistic degrees of freedom at annihilation and mPl denotes the Planck mass. In the range of parameters we are interested in, x 12 50 while m 1 2 TeV, so that this is a case of cold dark matter. Then f ∼ − ∼ − the present density of ϕi is given by

Ω(i)h2 =1.06 109x /(g1/2m σ v GeV) . (8) ϕ · f ⋆ Plh i i

2 Nϕ (i) 2 Finally, the requirement that the ϕi account for the inferred DM abundance, ΩDM h = Ωϕ h = 0.106 Pi=1 ± 0.008 [10], can be used to fix σiv , which translates into a relation λx = λx(m) thorugh the use of (6). Substituting this into δm2 = D m2 , we findh ai relation between m and Λ (for a given D ), which we plot in fig.2 for N = 6. It is | h| t h t ϕ important to stress that it is possible to find parameters Λ, λx and m such that both the hierarchy is ameliorated to 2 the prescribed level and such that Ωϕh is consistent with the DM requirement (we use a 3σ interval). It also is useful −3/2 to note that the singlet mass (as required by the DM) scales with their multiplicity as Nϕ , therefore increasing Nϕ implies smaller scalar mass, e.g. changing Nϕ from 1 to 6 leads to the reduction of mass by a factor 15. Neutrinos We now discuss consequences of the existence of ϕ for the leptonic sector, which we assume∼ consists of 4 the SM fields plus three right-handed neutrino fields νiR (i =1, 2, 3) that are also gauge singlets; in this section we assume only one singlet for simplicity. The relevant Lagrangian is then 1 = LY¯ Hl LY¯ Hν˜ (ν )cMν ϕ(ν )cY ν + H.c. (9) LY − l R − ν R − 2 R R − R ϕ R

T where L = (νL,lL) is a SM lepton isodoublet and lR a charged lepton isosinglets (we omit family indices); we will assume that the see-saw mechanism explains the smallness of three light neutrino masses, and accordingly we require M M Y v/√2. The symmetry of the potential under ϕ ϕ can be extended to (9) by requiring ≫ D ≡ ν →− L S L, l S l , ν S ν (10) → L R → lR R R → νR R

4 The arguments presented below remain essentially the same when a different number of right-handed neutrinos is present. 4

130. GeV 170. GeV 210. GeV 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 D D D 2.0 2.0 2.0 TeV TeV TeV @ 1.5 @ 1.5 @ 1.5 m m m 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 L @TeVD L @TeVD L @TeVD

m, D N Nϕ (i)h2 . ± . σ FIG. 2: The allowed region in the ( Λ) plane for t = 0, ϕ = 6 and i=1 Ωϕ = 0 106 0 008 at the 3 level for mh = 130, 170, 210 GeV (as indicated above each panel). P

where the unitary matrices SL,lR,νR obey

S† Y S = Y , S† Y S = Y , ST MS =+M, ST Y S = Y (11) L l lR l L ν νR ν νR νR νR ϕ νR − ϕ In order to determine the consequences of this symmetry we find it convenient to adopt the basis in which M and Yl are real and diagonal; for simplicity we will also assume that M has no degenerate eigenvalues. Then the last two conditions in (11) imply that S is real and diagonal, so its elements are 1. For 3 neutrino species there are then νR ± two possibilities (up to permutations of the basis vectors): we eiher have S = ½, Y = 0, or, more interestingly, νR ± ϕ 0 0 b1 S = ǫ diag(1, 1, 1); Y =  0 0 b  , ǫ = 1 , (12) νR − ϕ 2 ±  b1 b2 0  where b1,2 are, in general, complex. The first conditions in (11) now requires SlR = SL with S = diag(s ,s ,s ), s =1 (13) L 1 2 3 | i| −1 Before discussing the explicit solutions for Yν , we first diagonalize (to leading order in M ) the neutrino mass matrix in terms of the light (n) and heavy (N) eigenstates: = (¯nM n + NMN/¯ 2) with M = µ∗P + µP , µ = 4M M −1M T (14) Lm − n n R L − D D −1 −1 T where n and N are related to νR and νL through νL = nL + (MDM )NL and νR = NR (M MD)nR. − 5 The remaining condition in (11) allows ten (up to permutations of the basis vectors) inequivalent solutions for Yν . Of those, assuming single massless neutrino and the absence of ϕ n n decays, only one is acceptable; it corresponds → i j to s1,2,3 = ǫ (cf. (12)). To compare our results with the data, we use the so-called tri-bimaximal [11] lepton mixing matrix that corresponds to θ13 = 0, θ23 = π/4 and θ12 = arcsin(1/√3). One can undo the diagonalization of light neutrino mass matrix and check against the one implied by Yν as a consequence of (11). We find that there are only two possible forms of Yν that are consistent with (11) and independent of M, and that agree with tri-bimaximal mixing: a b 0 m = 3v2a2/M a b 0 m = 3v2b2/M 1 − 1 1 − 2 Y =  a/2 b 0  , m = 6v2b2/M and Y =  a b/2 0  m = 6v2a2/M (15) ν − 2 − 2 ν − 2 − 1  a/2 b 0  m3 =0  a b/2 0  m3 =0 − − where a and b are real (for simplicity) parameters. The resulting mass spectrum is consistent with the observed pattern of neutrino mass differences, see e.g. [13]. For this solution only N3 and ϕ are odd under the Z2 symmetry hence the ϕ will be absolutely stable if m

5 The conditions (11) where also investigated in [12]. 5

It is noteworthy that the presence of Y also leads to an additional contribution (Λ/π)2trY 2 to δm2 (we assumed ϕ − ϕ Yϕ real for simplicity) so the neutrinos can be used to ameliorate the little hierarchy problem associated with m (for this however Yϕ cannot be too small) thereby “closing” the solution to the little hierarchy problem in a spirit similar to . This interesting scenario will be discussed elsewhere [4]. Conclusions We have shown that the addition of real scalar singlets ϕi to the SM may ameliorate the little hierarchy problem (by lifting the cutoff Λ to multi TeV range) and also provide realistic candidates for DM. In the presence of right-handed neutrinos this scenario allows a light neutrino mass matrix texture that is consistent with experimental data while preserving all the successes of leptogenesis as an explanation for the baryon asymmetry. This work is supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Poland) as research project N N202 006334 (2008-11) and by the U.S. Department of Energy grant No. DE-FG03-94ER40837. B.G. acknowledges support of the European Community within the Marie Curie Research & Training Networks: ”HEPTOOLS” (MRTN- CT-2006-035505), and ”UniverseNet” (MRTN-CT-2006-035863), and through the Marie Curie Host Fellowships for the Transfer of Knowledge Project MTKD-CT-2005-029466. B.G. thanks S. Davidson, S. Pokorski and Z. Lalak for useful conversations and M. Pospelov and J. McDonald for correspondence concerning the ϕ annihilation cross section. JW would like to thank E. Ma for helpful conversations.

∗ Electronic address: [email protected] † Electronic address: [email protected] [1] R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall and V. S. Rychkov, Phys. Rev. D 74, 015007 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0603188]. [2] K. A. Meissner and H. Nicolai, Phys. Lett. B 648, 312 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0612165]. [3] G. Cynolter, E. Lendvai and G. Pocsik, Acta Phys. Polon. B 36, 827 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0410102]. [4] B. Grzadkowski and J. Wudka, work in progress. [5] M. B. Einhorn and D. R. T. Jones, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5206 (1992). [6] C. F. Kolda and H. Murayama, JHEP 0007, 035 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0003170]; J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa and I. Hidalgo, JHEP 0411, 057 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0410298]. [7] V. Silveira and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B 157, 191 (1985); J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3637 (1994) [arXiv:hep-ph/0702143]; H. Davoudiasl, R. Kitano, T. Li and H. Murayama, Phys. Lett. B 609, 117 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0405097]; J. J. van der Bij, Phys. Lett. B 636, 56 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0603082]; O. Bertolami and R. Rosenfeld, arXiv:0708.1784 [hep-ph]; V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and G. Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D 77, 035005 (2008) [arXiv:0706.4311 [hep-ph]]; S. Andreas, T. Hambye and M. H. G. Tytgat, JCAP 0810, 034 (2008) [arXiv:0808.0255 [hep-ph]]. [8] C. P. Burgess, M. Pospelov and T. ter Veldhuis, Nucl. Phys. B 619, 709 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0011335]; [9] E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, Front. Phys. 69 (1990) 1. [10] C. Amsler et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Lett. B 667, 1 (2008). [11] P. F. Harrison, D. H. Perkins and W. G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B 530, 167 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0202074]. [12] C. I. Low, Phys. Rev. D 71, 073007 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0501251]; S. S. C. Law and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 75, 043510 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0701189]. [13] G. Altarelli, arXiv:0711.0161 [hep-ph].