text:
# Scale-free Network on Euclidean Space Optimized by Rewiring of Links

## Abstract

A Barabási-Albert scale-free network is constructed whose nodes are the Poisson distributed random points within a unit square and links are the straight line connections among the nodes. The cost function, which is the total wiring length associated with a such a network defined on a two dimensional plane is optimized. The optimization process consists of random selection of a pair of links and rewiring them to reduce the total length of the pair but with the constraint that the degree as well as the out-degree and in-degree of each node are precisely maintained. The resulting optimized network has a small diameter as well as high clustering and the link length distribution has a stretched exponential tail.

The Internet is a very complex network connecting the large number of computers around the world Faloutsos ; web . The nodes of this network may be interpreted as the routers and links as the cables connecting computers. The network can also be described in the inter-domain level where each domain is represented by a single node and each link is an inter-domain connection. Such a network is well described by a graph consisting of a set of vertices and another set of edges among the vertices. Without assigning any weight with the links between the nodes only the topological structure of the Internet is meaningful. Study of Internet’s topological structure may be important for designing efficient routing protocols and modeling Internet traffic.

Internet is one of the large class of real-world networks that exhibit small-world and/or scale-free properties, e.g., social networks Newman , biological networks Jeong ; Sole , electronic communication networks Faloutsos ; web  etc. Quantities that characterize a network of $`N`$ nodes are the diameter $`𝒟(N)`$ which measures the topological extension of the network, the clustering co-efficient $`𝒞`$ measures the local correlations among the links of the network and the nodal degree distribution $`𝒫(k)`$. In a small-world network (SWN) WS , the diameter $`𝒟(N)`$ of the network scale logarithmically with $`N`$ where as for a scale-free network (SFN) the degree distribution has a power law tail: $`𝒫(k)k^\gamma `$. Barabási and Albert (BA) showed that a growing network with preferential link attachment probability is a SFN with $`\gamma =3`$ BA .

Waxman first studied probabilistic graph models of Internet where links have weights which are their physical lengths Waxman . The link length distribution in such networks decays exponentially: $`D(\mathrm{})\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}/\mathrm{}_o)`$. Faloutsos et. al. observed that the out-degree distribution of Internet follows a power law tail Faloutsos . Yook et. al. observed that the distribution of routers of North America is a fractal set and the link length distribution is inversely proportional to the link lengths Yook . It is suggested that in the growing Internet when a new node is becoming member of the network two competing factors control the decision to which node of the already grown Internet the new node will be connected. The factors are the degree $`k_i`$ of the existing node $`i`$ and in general the $`\alpha `$-th power of the length $`\mathrm{}`$ of the link connecting the new node and the node $`i`$. The preferential attachment probability for the $`i`$-th node is therefore: $`\pi _ik_i\mathrm{}^\alpha `$.

Recently it has been argued that such a network is scale-free for all values of $`\alpha >\alpha _c=1d`$ in $`d`$ dimension and the link length distribution generally follows a power law $`D(\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^\delta `$ where $`\delta (\alpha )=\alpha +d1`$ MS ; MS1 . For $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$ the degree distribution decays stretched exponentially but $`D(\mathrm{})`$ still maintains a power law where $`\delta `$ saturates at $`d1`$. The limit of $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ is interesting where each node connects only to its nearest earlier node. In a regular network in the form of a linear chain similar studies have been done Xulvi . An interplay between the preferential attachment and the link length selection within an interaction range for the Euclidean networks is studied in Barthelemy .

In this paper we associate a cost function associated with such networks. Each link of the network has the cost equal to its Euclidean length $`\mathrm{}`$ and therefore the cost function of the whole network is the total length of all the links of the network. The question we ask is, how can one construct a small-world scale-free network with minimal cost? To study this we start generating a $`N`$ node BA SFN on a two-dimensional plane. Links are then interchanged to reduce the cost function keeping the topology i.e. the degree value of each node intact. The optimization of the wiring length of networks on lattices has been studied in Rozenfeld .

We start with constructing a Barabási-Albert SFN embedded in the Euclidean space as follows. Let $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ and $`(y_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_N)`$ be the independent identically and uniformly distributed random variables on the interval . To construct one random configuration of the network let a specific set of values of the $`N`$ pair variables $`\{(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2),\mathrm{},(x_N,y_N)\}`$ be the co-ordinates of the set of $`N`$ points on the unit square representing the set of nodes of the network with serial numbers $`i=1`$ to $`N`$ assigned to them. We use first $`m+1`$ points with serial numbers $`i=1`$ to $`m+1`$ to construct a $`m+1`$-clique by connecting each point with rest of the $`m`$ points. Then following the serial numbers new points are added to the network one after another and each node is connected to randomly selected $`m`$ distinct previous nodes. The probability to link the new node with serial number $`j`$ to a previous node $`i`$ is linearly proportional to its degree, $`k_i`$. The network thus constructed up to $`N`$ nodes is exactly the BA network BA . At the same time it is a small-world network, i.e. the diameter $`𝒟(N)`$ of the network measured by the maximal distance between an arbitrary pair of nodes grow as $`\mathrm{log}(N)`$. In this paper we restrict ourselves to $`m=2`$.

Let $`𝐚`$ denote the symmetric adjacency matrix of size $`N\times N`$ for our network such that $`a_{ij}=1`$ if there is a link between the pair of nodes $`i`$ and $`j`$ and 0 otherwise. Let $`\mathrm{}_{ij}`$ denote the shortest Euclidean distance between the pair of nodes $`i`$ and $`j`$ taking into account the periodic boundary condition. Therefore when $`a_{ij}=1`$, $`\mathrm{}_{ij}`$ is the length of the connecting wire of the link between $`i`$ and $`j`$. The total cost function $`(N)`$ is therefore the sum over all link lengths of the network i.e., $`(N)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i>j}a_{ij}\mathrm{}_{ij}`$.

For the convenience of discussion we define a degree vector similar to the contact vector generally used in the polymer physics. Our degree vector $`𝐜`$ describes the topological connectivity of the network and has $`N`$ elements $`c_i=k_i`$, the degree of the $`i`$-th node. In the initial BA scale-free network one can associate a notion of time as if nodes are introduced one at each time unit. Therefore the links of the node $`i`$ introduced at time $`i`$ are divided into two groups ‘outgoing’ and ‘incoming’. Each node has only $`k^{out}=m`$ outgoing links connected to $`m`$ other nodes which are older than this node and it can be connected to $`k^{in}=km`$ other nodes which are younger than this node. Consequently the degree vector can be split into two other degree vectors $`𝐜^{\mathrm{𝐨𝐮𝐭}}`$ and $`𝐜^{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧}}`$ such that $`c_i^{out}=k_i^{out}`$ and $`c_i^{in}=k_i^{in}`$ and $`𝐜=𝐜^{\mathrm{𝐨𝐮𝐭}}+𝐜^{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧}}`$.

Next, we perform the optimization dynamics to minimize the total cost function $`(N)`$. The optimization dynamics conserves the number of links in the network, in addition it not only maintains the same degree vector $`𝐜`$ but also $`𝐜^{\mathrm{𝐨𝐮𝐭}}`$ and $`𝐜^{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧}}`$ separately and thus ensures that the degree distribution of the network remains exactly same as it is before the optimization process starts. We call it as ‘time-ordered’ rewiring. One trial of rewiring in the optimization scheme consists of selecting four nodes $`n_1,n_2,n_3`$ and $`n_4`$. The first node $`n_1`$ is randomly selected from the set of $`N`$ nodes. $`n_2`$ is selected randomly from the $`k_1`$ neighbours of $`n_1`$. Similarly $`n_3(n_1n_2)`$ is selected randomly from $`N`$ nodes and $`n_4(n_1n_2)`$ is again one of the $`k_3`$ neighbours of $`n_3`$. The move must maintain the conservation of link numbers as well as degree distribution. We replace the link pair $`n_1n_2`$ and $`n_3n_4`$ by another pair of links if either of the following two conditions is satisfied:

* if $`a_{13}=a_{24}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{12}+\mathrm{}_{34}>\mathrm{}_{13}+\mathrm{}_{24}`$ we link $`n_1n_3`$ and $`n_2n_4`$.
* if $`a_{14}=a_{23}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{12}+\mathrm{}_{34}>\mathrm{}_{14}+\mathrm{}_{23}`$ we link $`n_1n_4`$ and $`n_2n_3`$.

If both are satisfied we accept one of them with probability 1/2. If only one is satisfied we accept that (Fig. 1). If none of the two is satisfied we go for a fresh trial. We also study a second type of rewiring process where only the total degree vector $`𝐜`$ is maintained but not individually $`𝐜^{\mathrm{𝐨𝐮𝐭}}`$ and $`𝐜^{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧}}`$. Here in the final optimized network a particular node may have all neighbours which are younger than this node. We call this process as the ‘random’ rewiring method. In Fig. 2 we show how an initially complicated network becomes less messy with increasing number of rewiring trials.

Since we accept the move only if the total rewired cost is reduced the trial is similar to the zero temperature Monte Carlo dynamics. The total cost $`(N)`$ monotonically decreases with the number of successful trials and the number of un-successful trials between successive accepted moves increases. We typically try around $`10(mN)^2`$ such trials so that the plot of $`(N)`$ with logarithm of the number of trials nearly reaches a plateau.

From each point one can measure $`N1`$ distances and if these distances are sorted in an increasing sequence, one has the first neighbour distance, second neighbour distance, … $`(N1)`$-the neighbour distance etc. It is known that the average $`n`$-th neighbour distance $`R_N^n`$ varies as $`N^{1/2}`$ if $`n/N<<1`$ and it is of the order of 1 when $`n/N1`$ in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$ BKC . There is no other variation like $`N^x`$ when $`x`$ is neither 0 nor 1/2 but in between.

In the optimized network the links are not necessarily a fixed $`(n)`$ neighbour distances but a complex mixture of many neighbour distances. More elaborately it is expected that many of the links of the optimized network are first neighbour distances, less numbers are second neighbour distances, less numbers are third neighbour distances etc. In the optimized network we first calculate the probability density of the link length distribution $`D(\mathrm{})`$. This distribution on scaling by the average link length $`\mathrm{}(N)`$ is nearly the same for the time-ordered as well as the random rewiring processes. Contrary to the expectation this distribution has a maximum and it fits very well to a functional form $`D(\mathrm{})\mathrm{}(N)x^\alpha e^{ax^\beta }`$ with $`x=\mathrm{}/\mathrm{}(N)`$. The fit on a linear scale gives $`\alpha =1.4,1.1`$ and $`\beta =0.8,0.9`$ approximately for the time-ordered and random rewiring processes respectively. The network has $`N_{\mathrm{}}=2Nm1`$ links and therefore $`(N)=N_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}(N)`$. We plot in Fig. 3 $`\mathrm{}(N)`$ with $`N/\mathrm{log}N`$ and observe excellent straight lines on a double logarithmic scale. Therefore $`\mathrm{}(N)(N/\mathrm{log}N)^\mu `$ where $`\mu =0.46`$ and 0.52 with an error of 0.05 approximately for the time-ordered and random rewiring processes respectively.

The topological size of the network is measured by the diameter of the network. The distance $`d_{ij}`$ between an arbitrary pair of nodes $`i`$ and $`j`$ is the number of links on the shortest path connecting the two nodes. The diameter $`d_m`$ is the maximal distance on a network. The average diameter $`𝒟(N)`$ represents the configuration averaged maximal distance $`d_m`$. Variations of the average diameter of the optimized network with the network size is shown in Fig. 4. For the the time-ordered exchange $`𝒟(N)=A+B\mathrm{log}N`$ with $`A1.22`$ and $`B1.11`$ where as for the random exchange $`𝒟(N)N^\nu `$ with $`\nu =0.31\pm 0.04`$ where the error 0.04 is estimated by the largest difference of the local slopes between successive points and the mean slope. Although the degree distribution remains scale-free in the optimized networks generated by both the time-ordered and in random rewiring procedures, the first network retains some long range connections due to the constraint that both $`𝐜^{\mathrm{𝐨𝐮𝐭}}`$ and $`𝐜^{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧}}`$ are strictly maintained where as in the second network by random rewirings essentially all the connections are local, i.e. typically a node has all neighbours within a spatial distance of the order of $`N^{1/2}`$.

The local correlation among the links is measured by the clustering co-efficient. The clustering co-efficient $`𝒞_i`$ of the $`i`$-th node is measured by the ratio of the number of links $`e_i`$ within the $`k_i`$ neighbours of the $`i`$-th node and the number of links $`k_i(k_i1)/2`$ if the $`k_i`$ nodes have formed an $`k_i`$-clique i.e., $`𝒞_i=2e_i/\{k_i(k_i1)\}`$. The clustering co-efficient of the whole network $`𝒞(N)`$ is $`\overline{C}`$. Also the average clustering co-efficient for the set of nodes of degree $`k`$ is defined as $`𝒞(k)`$. In general both these clustering co-efficients may decrease as power laws: $`𝒞(N)N^a`$ and $`𝒞(k)k^b`$. In our case we start from the initial BA network where it is known that $`a3/4`$ and $`b=0`$ BA . We also calculate these quantities in the final optimized state. The total clustering coefficient is found to be independent of $`N`$ and therefore $`a`$=0 where as unlike a simple power law for $`C(k)`$ we get a power law with logarithmic correction. In Fig. 5 we plot $`𝒞(k)`$ with $`k/\{ln(k)\}^{1/2}`$ and observe straight lines on a double logarithmic scale implying the variation as:

$$𝒞(k)\{k/\{ln(k)\}^{1/2}\}^b$$
(1)
where $`b0.94`$ and 1.1 for the time-ordered and random rewiring processes respectively. We cannot rule out the possibility that $`b`$ is actually 1 for both the processes. Many networks and models show $`b=1`$ Janos ; BA .

To summarize, we have studied a cost optimized network which has three main features of the real-world networks e.g., it is a small-world network, it is a scale-free network and also it exhibits high clustering properties as well. We studied this network on the two-dimensional Euclidean space which should be relevant in the context of the Internet. While some links in Internet are the cable-less (microwave) links, many connections are made by real physical Ethernet cables. Therefore the question of optimizing cost of the total wiring length of the network arises naturally which is the main point of study in this paper. An optimized geographical embedding algorithm for scale-free networks was recently studied independently Rozenfeld . Unlike in Rozenfeld , our time-ordered optimization produces a statistically non-homogeneous network and preserves a significant number of long-distance connections, permitting the network diameter to still scale as $`\mathrm{log}(N)`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$. We also obtain a stretched-exponentially decaying tail of the link length distribution in the optimized network which is unlike the power-law tail observed by Yook et.al. Yook  and closer to the Waxman result Waxman .

SSM thankfully acknowledges P. Sen, P. Bhattacharyya and J. Kertész for critical reading of the manuscript and the Dipartimento di Fisica, University of Padova for hospitality. AK gratefully acknowledges the financial support of MIUR through COFIN 2001.


format: text

text:
# Plasmon spectrum of degenerated electron gas. 𝑇=0 Green function method. Detailed pedagogical derivation

## I Introduction

Plasma waves are well investigated in condensed matter physics. In the present paper we derive the dispersion of plasma waves in the framework of Green functions formalism for $`T=0`$. Our purpose is purely pedagogical. We use the diagram technique described in a textbook by Lifshitz and Pitaevskii Lifshitz9  in order to derive the dielectric polarizability of degenerated electron gas. The same result is derived in Lifshitz10  in a different way. Our analysis starts with the $`1D`$ case. Then we consider the $`2D`$ case which is realized in semiconductor inverse layers. For a review of the properties of two dimensional electron gas see, for example, Ref. 2DEG, .

## II Model

The dielectric formalism gives us the equation for the dielectric polarizability

$$\epsilon _l(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)=1V(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪).$$
(1)
In that expression $`V(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)`$ means photon propagator, which in non-relativistic approximation

$$v_{\mathrm{gr}}=\frac{\omega }{k}c$$

is the Fourier transformation of the Coulomb potential

$$V^{(2D)}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)\frac{2\pi e^2}{q},V^{(3D)}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)\frac{4\pi e^2}{q^2}.$$
(2)
The polarization operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the functional derivative of the electron density with respect to small perturbations of the electric potential. The diagram rules described in Ref. Lifshitz9 , section 13 give for the simple electron loop

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)=(i)(1)_PiG_{\alpha \beta }(P)iG_{\beta \alpha }(P+Q)\frac{d^{D+1}P}{(2\pi )^{D+1}},$$
(3)
where $`G_{\alpha \beta }(P)`$ are the Green functions of degenerated electron gas

$$G_{\alpha \beta }(P)=\delta _{\alpha \beta }G(P)=\frac{\delta _{\alpha \beta }}{\omega \eta _p(1i0)}.$$
(4)
We follow standard notations: $`\eta _p=\epsilon _p\mu ,\mu `$ is the Fermi energy, $`\epsilon _p=p^2/2m`$ is the electron kinetic energy and $`P=(\omega ,𝐩),Q=(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)`$. The dispersion of longitudinal plasma waves $`\mathrm{\Omega }(q)`$ is the solution of

$$\epsilon _l(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)=0.$$
(5)
The first step is calculating the polarization operator. Using

$`G(P)G(P+Q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \eta _p(1i0)}}.{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }\eta _{p+q}(1i0)}}=`$ (6)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta _p\eta _{p+q}+\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \eta _p(1i0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }\eta _{p+q}(1i0)}}\right],`$
the $`\omega `$ integration gives the electron filling factors

$$n_p=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d\omega }{\omega \eta _p(1i0)}=\mathrm{\theta }(p_Fp).$$
(7)
In such a way we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`=2i{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }G(P)G(P+Q)}=`$
$`=2{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{n_pn_{p+q}}{\eta _p\eta _{p+q}+\mathrm{\Omega }+i0}}=I_1+I_2,`$ (8)
where the evanescent imaginary part of the frequency corresponds to the Landau rule for adiabatic appearance of the perturbation, see Ref. Lifshitz10  secs. 29, 40, Eqs. (29.6), (40.15). Here for brevity we use the notations

$$I_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)=2\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{n_p}{\eta _p\eta _{p+q}+\mathrm{\Omega }}=2\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{n_p}{\frac{p^2}{2m}\frac{(𝐩+𝐪)^2}{2m}+\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(9)
$`I_2(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)`$ $`=2{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{n_{p+q}}{\eta _p\eta _{p+q}+\mathrm{\Omega }}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{n_{p+q}}{\frac{p^2}{2m}\frac{(𝐩+𝐪)^2}{2m}+\mathrm{\Omega }}}=`$
$`=2{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{n_{p+q}}{\frac{(𝐩+𝐪)^2}{2m}\frac{p^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Omega }}}.`$ (10)
We change the variables $`p^{}=p+q`$. Then $`dp=dp^{},n_{p+q}=n_p^{}`$ and

$$I_2(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪)=2\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{n_p}{\frac{p^2}{2m}\frac{(𝐩𝐪)^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Omega }}=I_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐪).$$
(11)
The general formula (8) for the response function of the electron gas is given in many textbooks on statistical and solid state physics.

In the next section we will analyze the simple case of $`D=1`$ which is discussed in Stratton .

## III 1-DIMENSIONAL CASE

For the case of $`D=1`$ we assume $`q0`$, and

$`I_1`$ $`=2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{n_p}{\frac{p^2}{2m}\frac{(p+q)^2}{2m}+\mathrm{\Omega }}}={\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\theta }(p_F|p|)dp}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^22pq}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{p_F}^{p_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^22pq}}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi q}}{\displaystyle _{p_F}^{p_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{\left[p+\left(\frac{q}{2}\frac{m\mathrm{\Omega }}{q}\right)\right]i0}}.`$ (12)
Then

$$I_1=\frac{m}{\pi q}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2+2p_Fq}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^22p_Fq}\right|\frac{im}{q}\mathrm{\theta }\left(1\left|\frac{q}{2p_F}\frac{m\mathrm{\Omega }}{p_Fq}\right|\right).$$
(13)
The velocity on Fermi level is $`v_F=p_F/m`$, and

$`I_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi q}}\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{q^2}{2m}+v_Fq}{\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{q^2}{2m}v_Fq}}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{im}{q}}\mathrm{\theta }\left(1\left|{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2p_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{m\mathrm{\Omega }}{p_Fq}}\right|\right),`$ (14)
$`I_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi q}}\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{q^2}{2m}v_Fq}{\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{q^2}{2m}+v_Fq}}\right|+{\displaystyle \frac{im}{q}}\mathrm{\theta }\left(1\left|{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2p_F}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m\mathrm{\Omega }}{p_Fq}}\right|\right).`$ (15)
Owing to the symmetry of the polarization operator

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(Q)=\mathrm{\Pi }(Q),$$

we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi q}}\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{q^2}{2m}+v_Fq)(\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{q^2}{2m}v_Fq)}{(\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{q^2}{2m}v_Fq)(\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{q^2}{2m}+v_Fq)}}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{im}{q}}\left[\mathrm{\theta }\left(1\left|{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2p_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{m\mathrm{\Omega }}{p_Fq}}\right|\right)\mathrm{\theta }\left(1\left|{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2p_F}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m\mathrm{\Omega }}{p_Fq}}\right|\right)\right]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi q}}\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1\left(\frac{\frac{q^2}{2m}v_Fq}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)^2}{1\left(\frac{\frac{q^2}{2m}+v_Fq}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)^2}}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{im}{q}}\left[\mathrm{\theta }\left(1\left|{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2p_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{m\mathrm{\Omega }}{p_Fq}}\right|\right)\mathrm{\theta }\left(1\left|{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2p_F}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m\mathrm{\Omega }}{p_Fq}}\right|\right)\right].`$ (16)
In hydrodynamic approximation (long waves and phase velocity much larger than Fermi velocity)

$$\frac{q^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Omega },q0,v_F\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{q}=v_\phi ,$$
(17)
we use

$$(1+ϵ)^n1+nϵ\text{for}ϵ1.$$

Then

$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi q}}\mathrm{ln}\left|\left(1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\frac{q^2}{2m}v_Fq}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^2\right)\left(1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\frac{q^2}{2m}+v_Fq}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^2\right)\right|`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi q}}\mathrm{ln}\left|1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\frac{q^2}{2m}v_Fq}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\frac{q^2}{2m}+v_Fq}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^2\right|=`$ (18)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi q}}\mathrm{ln}\left|1+{\displaystyle \frac{2v_Fq^3}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\right|.`$
Using

$$\mathrm{ln}(1+ϵ)ϵ\text{for}ϵ1,$$

we get

$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi q}}{\displaystyle \frac{2v_Fq^3}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2p_Fq^2}{\pi m\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}.`$ (19)
Let us introduce $`D`$-dimensional density of states

$$n^{(D)}=2\frac{V_F}{(2\pi )^D},V_F(p)=\frac{\pi ^{D/2}}{(D/2)!}p^D,V_F(p_F)=2p_F\text{ for }D=1,$$
(20)
where $`V_F`$ is the volume of the Fermi sphere. In our case

$$n^{(1D)}=2\frac{2p_F}{2\pi }=\frac{2p_F}{\pi }.$$
(21)
Then

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{q^2n^{(1D)}}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2}.$$
(22)
Calculating the Fourier transformation, it can be shown Stratton ; Pendry ; Mikhailov  that the photon propagator in long wavelength approximation ($`q0`$) obeys

$$V^{(1D)}(\mathrm{\Omega },q)2e^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{qa}\right),$$
(23)
where $`a0,a0`$ is a regularization parameter. More precisely

$$V^{(1D)}(\mathrm{\Omega },q)=e^2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{iqx}dx}{|x|}.$$
(24)
This integral is not convergent – we have to regularize it introducing a small diameter of the wire. We give two schemes:

$`1)`$ $`V^{(1D)}(\mathrm{\Omega },q)=e^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iqx}dx}{\sqrt{x^2+a^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi e^2}{2}}(N_0(iaq)+N_0(iaq))2e^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma qa}}\right),`$ (25)
$`2)`$ $`V^{(1D)}(\mathrm{\Omega },q)=2e^2{\displaystyle _a^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(x)dx}{x}}=2e^2\mathrm{Ci}(qa)2e^2(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(qa))=2e^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^\gamma qa}}\right).`$ (26)
Here $`\gamma `$ is Euler’s constant. As it is written above, both schemes yield

$$V2e^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{qa}\right).$$

In order to find the dispersion we have to solve the equation (5)

$$V\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{2e^2q^2n^{(1D)}}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{qa}\right)=1.$$
(27)
As a result, for dispersion of plasma waves we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2(q)=\frac{2e^2n^{(1D)}}{m}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{qa}\right)q^2,$$
(28)
in agreement with the derivation in Stratton .

In the next section we will discuss the case of $`D=2`$ which is for first time was discussed in 2DEG .

## IV 2-Dimensional case

For the case of $`D=2`$ we introduce polar variables

$`𝐩=p(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\theta ),𝐪=q(1,0),`$
$`d^2p=pdpd\theta ,𝐩𝐪=pq\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$
and

$`I_1=2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{n_p}{\frac{p^2}{2m}\frac{(𝐩+𝐪)^2}{2m}+\mathrm{\Omega }}}={\displaystyle \frac{4m}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{p\mathrm{\theta }(p_Fp)dpd\theta }{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^22pq\mathrm{cos}\theta }}.`$ (29)
If we use

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{ab\mathrm{cos}\theta }}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sign}(a)}{\sqrt{a^2b^2}}},`$ (30)
then

$`I_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\pi }}\mathrm{sign}(2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2){\displaystyle _0^{p_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{pdp}{\sqrt{(2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2)^24p^2q^2}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{m\mathrm{sign}(2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2)}{2\pi q^2}}\left[|2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2|\sqrt{(2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2)^24p_F^2q^2}\right].`$ (31)
The velocity on Fermi level is $`v_F=p_F/m`$, and

$`I_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{q})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\pi q^2}}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m}}\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m}})\sqrt{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m}}\right)^2q^2v_F^2}\right],`$ (32)
$`I_2(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{q})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\pi q^2}}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m}}+\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m}})\sqrt{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m}}\right)^2q^2v_F^2}\right].`$ (33)
Owing to the symmetry of the polarization operator

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(Q)=\mathrm{\Pi }(Q),$$

we obtain for big enough frequency

$`\mathrm{\Pi }={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\pi q^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m}}+\sqrt{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m}}\right)^2q^2v_F^2}\sqrt{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m}}\right)^2q^2v_F^2}\right].`$ (34)
Working in hydrodynamic approximation (17), we introduce the notation

$$ϵ=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }q^2/m}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\left(\frac{q^2}{2m}\right)^2q^2v_F^2}1.$$

In these terms we have for the polarization operator

$`\mathrm{\Pi }={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\pi q^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m}}+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2m}}\right)^2q^2v_F^2}\left(\sqrt{1+ϵ}\sqrt{1ϵ}\right)\right].`$ (35)
Using

$$\sqrt{1+ϵ}\sqrt{1ϵ}ϵ,$$

we arrive at

$`\mathrm{\Pi }=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\pi q^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }q^2/m}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\left(\frac{q^2}{2m}\right)^2q^2v_F^2}}}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2q^2v_F^2}}}1\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\left(\frac{qv_F}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)^2}}}1\right]={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{qv_F}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{q^2p_F^2}{2\pi m\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}.`$ (36)
For the $`2D`$ case the electron density

$`n^{(2D)}=2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi p_F^2}{(2\pi )^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{p_F^2}{2\pi }}.`$ (37)
Then

$`\mathrm{\Pi }={\displaystyle \frac{q^2n^{(2D)}}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}.`$ (38)
Again for the dispersion we solve the equation (5)

$`V\mathrm{\Pi }={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^2qn^{(2D)}}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}=1.`$ (39)
As a result for dispersion of $`2D`$ plasma waves, we get

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(q)={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^2n^{(2D)}}{m}}q.`$ (40)
Another important case is the static one $`(\mathrm{\Omega }=0)`$ for $`2D`$ electron gas where for $`q2p_F`$ we have $`\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Pi })=\frac{m}{\pi }`$ 2DEG .

In the next section we will discuss the $`D=3`$ case which is described in the monograph by Abrikosov, Gor’kov and Dzyaloshinsky AGD .

## V 3-Dimensional case

Analogously for $`D=3`$ we introduce spherical coordinates

$`𝐩=p(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta ),𝐪=q(0,0,1),`$
$`d^3p=p^2\mathrm{sin}\theta dpd\theta d\phi ,𝐩𝐪=pq\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$
Then (we are not interested in the imaginary part)

$`I_1`$ $`=2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{n_p}{\frac{p^2}{2m}\frac{(𝐩+𝐪)^2}{2m}+\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4m}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2\mathrm{\theta }(p_Fp)\mathrm{sin}\theta dpd\theta d\phi }{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^22pq\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ (41)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\pi ^2q}}{\displaystyle _0^{p_F}}p\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2+2pq}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^22pq}}\right|dp.`$
To simplify the notations we introduce $`a=2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2,b=2q,`$ so

$`{\displaystyle _0^{p_F}}p\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{a+bp}{abp}}\right|dp`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_F^2\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{a+bp_F}{abp_F}}\right|ab{\displaystyle _0^{p_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2dp}{a^2b^2p^2}}`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{2b^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{a+bp_F}{abp_F}}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{a}{b}}p_F,`$ (42)
and

$`I_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{4\pi ^2q}}\left(p_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{(2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2)^2}{4q^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2+2p_Fq}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^22p_Fq}}\right|`$ (43)
$`+(2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2){\displaystyle \frac{mp_F}{4\pi ^2q^2}},`$
$`I_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{4\pi ^2q}}\left(p_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{(2m\mathrm{\Omega }+q^2)^2}{4q^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{2m\mathrm{\Omega }+q^2+2p_Fq}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }+q^22p_Fq}}\right|`$ (44)
$`(2m\mathrm{\Omega }+q^2){\displaystyle \frac{mp_F}{4\pi ^2q^2}}.`$
Finally we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{4\pi ^2q}}\left(p_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{(2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2)^2}{4q^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2+2p_Fq}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^22p_Fq}}\right|`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4\pi ^2q}}\left(p_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{(2m\mathrm{\Omega }+q^2)^2}{4q^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{2m\mathrm{\Omega }+q^2+2p_Fq}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }+q^22p_Fq}}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{mp_F}{2\pi ^2}}.`$
The Fourier transformation of the static polarization operator gives the well known from the physics of magnetism RKKY interaction. Technical details are given in Ref. RKKY, .

Introducing the notations

$`g(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m(\mathrm{\Omega }^2q^2v_F^2)}{2q^3v_F}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }+qv_F}{\mathrm{\Omega }qv_F}},\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm =\mathrm{\Omega }\pm q^2/2m,`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$ $`=\sqrt{4\pi n^{(3D)}e^2/m},n^{(3D)}=2{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{4}{3}\pi p_F^3}{(2\pi )^3}}={\displaystyle \frac{p_F^3}{3\pi ^2}},`$ (47)
the longitudinal polarizability takes the form Lifshitz10

$$\epsilon _l(\mathrm{\Omega },q)1=\frac{3\mathrm{\Omega }_e^2}{2q^2v_F^2}(1g(\mathrm{\Omega }_+)+g(\mathrm{\Omega }_{})).$$
(48)
As we did before, we use the hydrodynamical approximation (17), and

$$\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{1+x}{1x}\right|\underset{x0}{\overset{}{}}2x+\frac{2}{3}x^3,x=\frac{2p_Fq}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }\pm q^2}.$$
(49)
That is why equation (45) transforms into

$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{4\pi ^2q}}\left(p_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{(2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2)^2}{4q^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{4p_Fq}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16p_F^3q^3}{3(2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2)^3}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4\pi ^2q}}\left(p_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{(2m\mathrm{\Omega }+q^2)^2}{4q^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{4p_Fq}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }+q^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16p_F^3q^3}{3(2m\mathrm{\Omega }+q^2)^3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{mp_F}{2\pi ^2}}`$
$`=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{mp_F^3}{\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }+q^2}}\right)`$ (50)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4mp_F^3q^2}{3\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2m\mathrm{\Omega }q^2)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2m\mathrm{\Omega }+q^2)^3}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{p_F^3q^2}{3\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}.`$
Taking into account the density of states we can write the polarization operator in another form

$`\mathrm{\Pi }={\displaystyle \frac{q^2n^{(3D)}}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}.`$ (51)
This hydrodynamic asymptotic is valid for arbitrary dimensions.

Turning back in (5)

$`V\mathrm{\Pi }={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e^2}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2n^{(3D)}}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}=1,`$ (52)
we finally obtain the well-known result for bulk plasma oscillations

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(q)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e^2n^{(3D)}}{m}}=\mathrm{const}.`$ (53)
###### Acknowledgements.

One of the authors (TM) is thankful to Tz. Sariisky for introducing him in the quantum field methods Ceco  in solid state plasma physics.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a previous paper, we studied an extension of the Standard Model in which a real scalar $`SU(2)`$ triplet with zero hypercharge is added to the usual scalar $`SU(2)`$ doublet . We showed that such an extension is allowed by the precision data and that the mass of the lightest Higgs boson can be as big as 500 GeV.

To recap, the Lagrangian of the model in terms of the usual Standard Model Higgs, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, and the new triplet, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, reads

$``$ $`=`$ $`(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_1)^{}D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_2)^{}D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_2V_0(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2),`$ (1)
with a scalar potential

$`V_0(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _1^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_1|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2^2}{2}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_2|^2+\lambda _1|\mathrm{\Phi }_1|^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{4}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_2|^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{2}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_1|^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_2|^2`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _4\mathrm{\Phi }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\sigma ^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_{2}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}.`$
$`\sigma ^\alpha `$ are the Pauli matrices. The expansion of the field components is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^+\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(h_c^0+h^0+i\varphi ^0\right)\end{array}\right)_{Y=1},\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta _1\\ \eta _2\\ \eta _c^0+\eta ^0\end{array}\right)_{Y=0}`$ (8)
where $`\eta ^\pm =(\eta _1i\eta _2)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\varphi ^0`$ is the Goldstone boson which is eaten by the $`Z^0`$.

The model violates custodial symmetry at tree level giving a prediction for the $`\rho `$-parameter of

$`\rho =1+4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta _c^0}{h_c^0}}\right)^2.`$ (9)
As discussed in , it is precisely this violation of custodial symmetry which allows the lightest Higgs to be much heavier than in the Standard Model. By giving the triplet a non-zero vacuum expectation value, one is in effect making a positive tree-level contribution to the $`T`$-parameter, and this is enough to allow a heavier Higgs.

In the neutral Higgs sector we have two CP-even states which mix with angle $`\gamma `$. The mass eigenstates $`\{H^0,N^0\}`$ are defined by

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}H^0\\ N^0\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\gamma & \mathrm{sin}\gamma \\ \mathrm{sin}\gamma & \mathrm{cos}\gamma \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}h^0\\ \eta ^0\end{array}\right).`$ (16)
There is also mixing in the charged Higgs sector. We define the mass eigenstates $`\{g^\pm ,h^\pm \}`$ by

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}g^\pm \\ h^\pm \end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\beta & \mathrm{sin}\beta \\ \mathrm{sin}\beta & \mathrm{cos}\beta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^\pm \\ \eta ^\pm \end{array}\right).`$ (23)
The $`g^\pm `$ are the Goldstone bosons corresponding to $`W^\pm `$ and, at tree level, the mixing angle is

$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _c^0}{h_c^0}}.`$ (24)
The precision electroweak data constrain $`\beta `$ to be smaller than about $`4^{}`$ .

In this paper we wish to examine the renormalization group flow of the couplings and hence establish bounds on the scalar masses under the assumption that the triplet model remain valid up to some scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ TeV and make no statements about physics at higher scales. For the Lagrangian of (1) to remain appropriate up to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we demand that the scalar couplings $`\lambda _i`$ remain perturbative and that the vacuum remain stable (i.e. is a local minimum) up to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We begin in the next section with the calculation of the beta-functions. In Section 3 we present our results away from the decoupling limit of the model and in Section 4 we discuss decoupling.

## 2 The one-loop effective potential and the beta-functions

The effective potential  has the following one-loop expansion in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization scheme and ’t Hooft-Landau gauge:

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`V_0+V_{\mathrm{CT}}+V_1`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda _1h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{4}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda _2\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{4}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda _3h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _4h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\eta _c^0`$
$`+`$ $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \mu _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \mu _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta \lambda _1h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{4}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta \lambda _2\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{4}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta \lambda _3h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \lambda _4h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\eta _c^0`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}m_Z^4(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}})+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}m_W^4(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}})3m_t^4(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_{\varphi ^0}^4\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\varphi ^0}^2}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_{g^\pm }^4\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{g^\pm }^2}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_{h^\pm }^4\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{h^\pm }^2}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_{H^0}^4(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{H^0}^2}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_{N^0}^4(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{N^0}^2}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}{64\pi ^2}}\left\{3m_Z^4+6m_W^412m_t^4+m_{\varphi ^0}^4+2m_{g^\pm }^4+2m_{h^\pm }^4+m_{H^0}^4+m_{N^0}^4\right\}.`$
$`\mu `$ is the renormalization scale and $`C_{\mathrm{UV}}=\frac{2}{4D}\gamma _E+\mathrm{log}4\pi `$. We have included the contributions from all the relevant physical states including the heaviest fermion, the top quark. The terms with $`\delta `$ correspond to the counterterms of the theory and the tree-level masses are

$`m_Z^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(g^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right),`$ (26)
$`m_W^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^2h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+g^2\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2},`$ (27)
$`m_t^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2},`$ (28)
$`m_{\varphi ^0}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda _1h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda _4\eta _c^0,`$ (29)
$`m_{g^\pm }^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _1^2+\lambda _1h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda _4\eta _c^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda _4h_c^0\mathrm{tan}\beta ,`$ (30)
$`m_{h^\pm }^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _2^2+\lambda _2\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda _4h_c^0\mathrm{tan}\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2},`$ (31)
$`m_{H^0}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+3\lambda _1h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda _4\eta _c^0+\lambda _4h_c^0\mathrm{tan}\gamma \lambda _3h_c^0\eta _c^0\mathrm{tan}\gamma ,`$ (32)
$`m_{N^0}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _2^2+3\lambda _2\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda _4h_c^0\mathrm{tan}\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3h_c^0\left(h_c^0+2\eta _c^0\mathrm{tan}\gamma \right).`$ (33)
It is understood that we should substitute explicitly for the mixing angles, which are solutions to the equations

$`\lambda _4h_c^0+\mathrm{tan}\beta \left(\mu _1^2\mu _2^2+\lambda _1h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda _4\eta _c^0\lambda _2\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda _4h_c^0\mathrm{tan}\beta \right)=0,`$ (34)
$`\lambda _4h_c^0+\lambda _3h_c^0\eta _c^0+\mathrm{tan}\gamma (\mu _1^2\mu _2^2+3\lambda _1h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda _4\eta _c^0`$
$`3\lambda _2\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda _4h_c^0\mathrm{tan}\gamma \lambda _3h_c^0\eta _c^0\mathrm{tan}\gamma )=0.`$ (35)
The expressions for the counterterms are thus

$`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}{64\pi ^2}}\left(4\mu _1^4+3\mu _2^2\right),`$ (36)
$`\delta \mu _1^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}{32\pi ^2}}\left(12\lambda _1\mu _1^2+3\lambda _3\mu _2^2+6\lambda _4^2\right),`$ (37)
$`\delta \mu _2^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}{32\pi ^2}}\left(10\lambda _2\mu _2^2+4\lambda _3\mu _1^2+4\lambda _4^2\right),`$ (38)
$`\delta \lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}g^43h_t^4+12\lambda _1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\lambda _3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}g^2g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\right),`$ (39)
$`\delta \lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}{16\pi ^2}}\left(6g^4+11\lambda _2^2+\lambda _3^2\right),`$ (40)
$`\delta \lambda _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}{16\pi ^2}}\left(3g^4+6\lambda _1\lambda _3+5\lambda _2\lambda _3+2\lambda _3^2\right),`$ (41)
$`\delta \lambda _4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}{8\pi ^2}}\lambda _4\left(\lambda _1+\lambda _3\right),`$ (42)
where $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the counterterm for the vacuum energy.

The fact that the theory should be independent of the unphysical mass $`\mu `$ implies that the couplings and masses acquire a $`\mu `$ dependence governed by the Renormalization Group (RG) equation for the one-loop effective potential, i.e.

$`(\beta _{\mu _1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu _1^2}}+\beta _{\mu _2}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu _2^2}}+\beta _{\lambda _1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _1}}+\beta _{\lambda _2}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _2}}+\beta _{\lambda _3}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _3}}+\beta _{\lambda _4}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _4}}`$
$`\gamma _{h^0}h_c^0{\displaystyle \frac{}{h_c^0}}\gamma _{\eta ^0}\eta _c^0{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta _c^0}})V_0(h_c^0,\eta _c^0)=2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{log}\mu ^2}}V_1(h_c^0,\eta _c^0).`$ (43)
In terms of the tree level masses this equation is equivalent to

$`\left(2\beta _{\mu _1}4\gamma _{h^0}\mu _1^2\right)h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+\left(2\beta _{\mu _2}4\gamma _{\eta ^0}\mu _2^2\right)\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+\left(\beta _{\lambda _1}4\gamma _{h^0}\lambda _1\right)h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{4}+\left(\beta _{\lambda _2}4\gamma _{\eta ^0}\lambda _2\right)\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{4}`$
$`+\left(\beta _{\lambda _3}2\left(\gamma _{h^0}+\gamma _{\eta ^0}\right)\lambda _3\right)h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}2\left(\beta _{\lambda _4}\left(2\gamma _{h^0}+\gamma _{\eta ^0}\right)\lambda _4\right)h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\eta _c^0`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\left(3m_Z^4+6m_W^412m_t^4+m_{\varphi ^0}^4+2m_{g^\pm }^4+2m_{h^\pm }^4+m_{H^0}^4+m_{N^0}^4\right),`$ (44)
and, matching powers of fields, we can derive the beta functions:

$`\beta _{\mu _1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}}\delta \mu _1^2+2\gamma _{h^0}\mu _1^2,`$ (45)
$`\beta _{\mu _2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}}\delta \mu _2^2+2\gamma _{\eta ^0}\mu _2^2,`$ (46)
$`\beta _{\lambda _1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}}\delta \lambda _1+4\gamma _{h^0}\lambda _1,`$ (47)
$`\beta _{\lambda _2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}}\delta \lambda _2+4\gamma _{\eta ^0}\lambda _2,`$ (48)
$`\beta _{\lambda _3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}}\delta \lambda _3+2\left(\gamma _{h^0}+\gamma _{\eta ^0}\right)\lambda _3,`$ (49)
$`\beta _{\lambda _4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{C_{\mathrm{UV}}}}\delta \lambda _4+\left(2\gamma _{h^0}+\gamma _{\eta ^0}\right)\lambda _4.`$ (50)
We can now make use of the anomalous dimensions for the two neutral Higgs fields

$`\gamma _{h^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left(3h_t^2{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}g^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right),`$ (51)
$`\gamma _{\eta ^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2}}g^2,`$ (52)
to write down our final expressions for the one-loop beta functions:

$`\beta _{\mu _1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left(6\lambda _4^2+12\lambda _1\mu _1^2+3\lambda _3\mu _2^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\left(3h_t^2{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}g^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)\mu _1^2,`$ (53)
$`\beta _{\mu _2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left(4\lambda _4^2+4\lambda _3\mu _1^2+10\lambda _2\mu _2^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi ^2}}g^2\mu _2^2,`$ (54)
$`\beta _{\lambda _1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}g^43h_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}+12\lambda _1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\lambda _3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}g^2g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\right)`$ (55)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\left(3h_t^2{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}g^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)\lambda _1,`$
$`\beta _{\lambda _2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\left(6g^4+11\lambda _2^2+\lambda _3^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\pi ^2}}g^2\lambda _2,`$ (56)
$`\beta _{\lambda _3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\left(3g^4+6\lambda _1\lambda _3+5\lambda _2\lambda _3+2\lambda _3^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\left(3h_t^2{\displaystyle \frac{33}{4}}g^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)\lambda _3,`$ (57)
$`\beta _{\lambda _4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\lambda _4\left(\lambda _1+\lambda _3\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32\pi ^2}}\left(4h_t^27g^2g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)\lambda _4.`$ (58)
In the gauge and top quark sector the beta functions for the $`U(1)`$, $`SU(3)`$ and Yukawa couplings are the same as in the Standard Model, i.e.

$`\beta _g^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{41}{96\pi ^2}}g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3},`$ (59)
$`\beta _{g_S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16\pi ^2}}g_{S}^{}{}_{}{}^{3},`$ (60)
$`\beta _{h_t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}h_t^28g_{S}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}g^2{\displaystyle \frac{17}{12}}g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right\}h_t.`$ (61)
The $`SU(2)`$ coupling is modified due to the extra Higgs triplet in the adjoint representation, i.e.

$`\beta _g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{32\pi ^2}}g^3.`$ (62)
Working with the tree-level effective potential with couplings evolved using the one-loop $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ functions we are able to resum the leading logarithms to all orders in the effective potential. It would be possible to include the next-to-leading logarithmic contributions by using the two-loop $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ functions and including the one-loop part of the effective potential, see .

Let us now turn to the RG analysis. We first introduce the parameter $`t`$, related to the scale $`\mu `$ through $`\mu (t)=m_Z\mathrm{exp}(t)`$. We shall perform evolution starting at $`t=0`$. The RG equations are coupled differential equations in the set

$`\{g_s,g,g^{},h_t,\mu _1,\mu _2,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3,\lambda _4\}.`$ (63)
We choose rather to use the following set to define the input to the RG equations:

$`\{\alpha _s,m_Z,\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,m_t,m_{h^\pm },m_{H^0},m_{N^0},v,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\mathrm{tan}\gamma \}.`$ (64)
Within the accuracy to which we are working, the values of the couplings at $`t=0`$ can be obtained from the input set using the appropriate tree-level expressions.

The vacuum conditions,

$`h_c^0\mu _1^2+\lambda _1h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{3}\lambda _4h_c^0\eta _c^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3h_c^0\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}=0,`$ (65)
$`\eta _c^0\mu _2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}\eta _c^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _4h_{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+\lambda _2\eta _{c}^{0}{}_{}{}^{3}=0,`$ (66)
allow us to write (defining $`h_c^0v`$ and $`\eta _c^0\frac{v}{2}\mathrm{tan}\beta `$)

$`m_Z^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}v^2\left(g^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right),`$ (67)
$`m_W^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^2v^2\left(1+\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \right),`$ (68)
$`m_t^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}v^2,`$ (69)
$`m_{\varphi ^0}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{g^\pm }^2=0,`$ (70)
$`m_{h^\pm }^2`$ $`=`$ $`v\lambda _4\left(\mathrm{cot}\beta +\mathrm{tan}\beta \right),`$ (71)
$`m_{H^0}^2`$ $`=`$ $`v\left\{2v\lambda _1+\left(\lambda _4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v\lambda _3\mathrm{tan}\beta \right)\mathrm{tan}\gamma \right\},`$ (72)
$`m_{N^0}^2`$ $`=`$ $`v\lambda _4\left(\mathrm{cot}\beta \mathrm{tan}\gamma \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2\mathrm{tan}\beta \left(\lambda _2\mathrm{tan}\beta +\lambda _3\mathrm{tan}\gamma \right),`$ (73)
$`\mathrm{tan}(2\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{tan}\beta \left(2\lambda _4+v\lambda _3\mathrm{tan}\beta \right)}{2\lambda _44v\lambda _1\mathrm{tan}\beta +v\lambda _2\mathrm{tan}^3\beta }}.`$ (74)
Inverting these relations we can thus fix the $`t=0`$ boundary conditions for the subsequent evolution:

$`g_s`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{4\pi \alpha _s(m_Z)}1.22,`$ (75)
$`v`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{1/4}\sqrt{G_{\mathrm{Fermi}}}}}246\mathrm{GeV},`$ (76)
$`g^{}`$ $``$ $`g\mathrm{tan}\theta _W0.35,`$ (77)
$`g`$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z}{v}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _W0.65,`$ (78)
$`h_t`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{v}}1.01,`$ (79)
$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v^2}}\left(m_{H^0}^2\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma +m_{N^0}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma \right),`$ (80)
$`\lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}\left\{m_{h^\pm }^2m_{H^0}^2m_{N^0}^2+m_{h^\pm }^2\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )+\left(m_{H^0}^2m_{N^0}^2\right)\mathrm{cos}(2\gamma )\right\}\mathrm{cot}^2\beta ,`$ (81)
$`\lambda _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}\mathrm{cot}\beta \left\{m_{h^\pm }^2\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )+\left(m_{H^0}^2+m_{N^0}^2\right)\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma )\right\},`$ (82)
$`\lambda _4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}m_{h^\pm }^2\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}\beta ,`$ (83)
$`\mu _1^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\{4m_{H^0}^2\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma +2m_{h^\pm }^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta 4m_{N^0}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma `$ (84)
$`+`$ $`(m_{H^0}^2m_{N^0}^2)\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma )\mathrm{tan}\beta \},`$
$`\mu _2^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{m_{h^\pm }^2m_{H^0}^2m_{N^0}^2+m_{h^\pm }^2\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )`$ (85)
$`+`$ $`(m_{H^0}^2m_{N^0}^2)(\mathrm{cos}(2\gamma )+2\mathrm{cot}\beta \mathrm{sin}(2\gamma ))\}.`$
To ensure that the system remains in a local minimum we impose the condition that the squared masses should remain positive, i.e.

$`\lambda _4>0,`$ (86)
$`2v\lambda _1+\left(\lambda _4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v\lambda _3\mathrm{tan}\beta \right)\mathrm{tan}\gamma >0,`$ (87)
$`\lambda _4\left(\mathrm{cot}\beta \mathrm{tan}\gamma \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v\mathrm{tan}\beta \left(\lambda _2\mathrm{tan}\beta +\lambda _3\mathrm{tan}\gamma \right)>0.`$ (88)
We impose the further requirement that the couplings remain perturbative. In particular we insist that $`|\lambda _i(t)|<4\pi `$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`|\lambda _4|<4\pi v`$. We run the evolution from $`t=0`$ to $`t_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_Z)`$, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ TeV.

## 3 Results in the non-decoupling regime

In this section we present our results of the Higgs mass bounds in the regime where the triplet Higgs cannot be arbitrarily heavy. As we shall see in the next section, decoupling of the triplet occurs when both mixing angles and their sum $`(\beta +\gamma )`$ tend to zero and in this case, the triplet decouples from the doublet and can be arbitrarily heavy.

We are free to choose the 3 scalar masses and the 2 mixing angles at $`t=0`$. In Figure 1 we show the range of Higgs masses allowed when there is no mixing in the neutral Higgs sector, $`\gamma =0`$, for a value of $`\beta =0.04`$. Such a value is towards the upper end of the range allowed by the precision data and is interesting because it allows a rather heavy lightest Higgs (e.g. for $`\beta =0.04,m_{H^0}>150`$ GeV and for $`\beta =0.05,m_{H^0}>300`$ GeV) . The strong correlation between the $`h^\pm `$ and $`N^0`$ masses arises in order that $`\lambda _2`$ remain perturbative ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m\beta ^2v`$ for masses $`v`$). The upper bound on the triplet Higgs masses ($`550`$ GeV) comes about from the perturbativity of $`\lambda _3`$ whilst that on $`H^0`$ ($`520`$ GeV) comes from the perturbativity of $`\lambda _1`$. These latter two bounds can be estimated crudely by ignoring the evolution of the couplings directly from equations (80) and (82). Evolution tightens the bounds due to the positivity of the beta functions, especially for the $`H^0`$ since $`8\pi ^2\beta _{\lambda _1}12\lambda _1^2`$. The hole at low masses is due to vacuum stability.

In Figure 2 we show the allowed regions for $`\gamma =0.1`$. The correlation of the mainly triplet Higgses is as in Figure 1. For large $`m_{H^0}`$ ($`>450`$ GeV), the upper limit on the triplet Higgs mass arises because $`\lambda _1`$ becomes too large (in this region $`\lambda _1\lambda _3)`$. For smaller $`m_{H^0}`$, $`\lambda _1`$ is much smaller than $`\lambda _3`$ and the upper bound comes from the largeness of $`\lambda _3`$ with the tree-level estimate being $`m_{h^\pm }^2<2\pi v^2(\beta /\gamma )`$. The upper limit on $`m_{H^0}`$ is again a consequence of the perturbativity of $`\lambda _1`$, except at low $`h^\pm `$ masses, where it is due to the negativity of $`\lambda _3`$ driving the vacuum unstable. For very low $`m_{h^\pm }`$, $`\lambda _2`$ becoming too large is the problem.

In Figure 3 we show the allowed regions for $`\gamma =\pi /4`$. In this maximal mixing scenario one loses the distinction between doublet and triplet Higgses and the bounds are correspondingly more democratic. The largeness of $`\mathrm{tan}(2\gamma )`$ can be arranged either by tuning $`2v\lambda _1\lambda _4/\beta `$ or by having small enough $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _4`$. In the former case, all masses are approximately degenerate, as can be seen in the plot. In the latter case, which corresponds to light masses, the degeneracy is lifted. The bounds for $`\gamma >\pi /4`$ are very similar to those for $`(\pi /2\gamma )`$ on interchanging the neutral Higgses $`N^0`$ and $`H^0`$.

For $`\beta <0.04`$ and small $`\gamma `$ (but still away from the decoupling regime) the allowed regions are very similar to those for $`\beta =0.04`$, i.e. as in Figure 1. For larger $`\gamma `$, the mass bounds are again as for larger $`\beta `$ but with the correlation between the neutral and charged Higgs masses becoming even stronger than for larger $`\beta `$.

We should stress that all of the previous discussion is valid for strictly non-zero $`\beta `$. The situation is quite different for $`\beta =0`$. If the neutral mixing is not zero (which is required if we are to avoid decoupling) then the vacuum conditions dictate that $`\mu _1^2=\lambda _1v^2`$ and $`\lambda _4=0`$ and this renders equation (34) redundant. Equation (35) then yields $`\mu _2^2=2\lambda _1v^2\frac{1}{2}\lambda _3v^2`$ and we have complete degeneracy, i.e. $`m_{H^0}^2=m_{N^0}^2=m_{h^\pm }^2=2\lambda _1v^2`$.

## 4 The decoupling limit

So far we have worked in a regime where the triplet does not decouple from the doublet. Clearly for $`\beta =\gamma =0`$ there is no mixing between the doublet and triplet and there is no bound on the triplet mass. This is a special case of the more general decoupling scenario, which occurs when $`|\beta +\gamma |\beta `$, which we now discuss.

For small mixing angles, the (mainly) triplet Higgs has mass squared $`\lambda _4v/\beta `$. One possible solution to the mixing angle equations (34) and (35) is that $`\lambda _4\beta v`$ and any $`\gamma `$. In this case the triplet Higgs has mass $`v`$. This is the regime of the previous section. However, it is also possible to solve the mixing angle equations with $`\lambda _4v`$ by keeping $`\mu _2^2`$ large, i.e. (34) gives $`\lambda _4v=\beta \mu _2^2v^2`$. In this case, equation (35) forces $`\beta +\gamma 0`$. This is the decoupling limit in which the triplet mass lies far above the mass of the doublet and the low energy model looks identical to the Standard Model.

Tree level arguments on the perturbativity of $`\lambda _3`$ allow us to quantify the approach to decoupling from the point of view of the triplet Higgs mass. In particular (82) dictates that, for small $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$,

$$m_{h^\pm }^2m_{N^0}^2<\frac{2\pi v^2\beta +\gamma m_{H^0}^2}{\beta +\gamma }.$$
(89)
By virtue of the smallness of $`\beta _{\lambda _3}`$ this relation picks up relatively small loop corrections. This bound clearly demonstrates decoupling. It also re-iterates the results of the previous section, i.e. for small $`\beta \gamma `$ the limit is as in Figure 1 and for small $`\beta \gamma `$ the limit is as in Figure 2.

We remark that the pseudo-decoupling regime, where $`\beta `$ is not too small, is of particular interest in that it again allows one to relax the mass bound on the lightest Higgs coming from the precision data without otherwise changing the physics of the Standard Model .

## 5 Conclusions

We have computed the one-loop beta functions for the scalar couplings in an extension to the Standard Model which contains an additional real triplet Higgs. Through considerations of perturbativity of the couplings and vacuum stability we have been able to identify the allowed masses of the Higgs bosons in the non-decoupling regime. In the decoupling regime, the model tends to resemble the Standard Model.

We note that the theoretical mass bounds presented here will of course be tightened after considering the precision electroweak and direct search data. Such a study requires that the impact of the quantum corrections (to the $`T`$ parameter) for non-zero $`\gamma `$ be computed (they were not explored in ).

As a final remark, we wish to emphasise that the near degeneracy of the triplet Higgs masses (the mass splitting is naturally $`\beta ^2v`$) ensures that, at least for small $`\gamma `$, the quantum corrections to the $`T`$ parameter are negligible (the $`S`$ parameter vanishing since the triplet has zero hypercharge) . As shown in , this means that the lightest Higgs boson can be heavy as a result of the compensation arising from the explicit tree-level violation of custodial symmetry which the real triplet induces. Thus it is quite possible to be in a regime where all the Higgs bosons are heavy without any dramatic deviation from the physics of the Standard Model.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Ben Allanach, Arthur Hebecker, Apostolos Pilaftsis and Douglas Ross for discussions. ASV acknowledges the support of PPARC (Postdoctoral Fellowship: PPA/P/S/1999/00446).