high energy physics experiments in recent years have confirmed the predictions of the standard model ( sm ) , a renormalizable , chiral gauge theory based on the group @xmath3 . in particular ,
the low energy dynamics of fermions and gauge bosons of the theory have been tested with great accuracy .
the origin of masses of these fundamental particles , however , remains a mystery . in the sm ,
masses arise through the vacuum expectation value ( vev ) of a scalar field doublet , which spontaneously breaks the electroweak ( ew ) symmetry @xmath4 . a physical , neutral scalar field , the so called higgs field , appears in the spectrum .
information on the mass of this scalar particle may be obtained through the quantum corrections that it induces to the masses and couplings of the ew gauge bosons .
consistency of the sm predictions with experimental observations is improved for small values of the higgs mass , @xmath5 , close to the current experimental bound , @xmath6  gev  @xcite .
there are several aspects of the mechanism of the origin of mass that demand explanation . on one hand ,
the scale of the spontaneous symmetry breaking is governed by the size of the scalar mass parameter appearing in the higgs field effective potential , and is much smaller than the planck scale , the only known mass scale in nature , besides the dynamical generated qcd scale @xmath7 .
moreover , this scale is associated with a negative value of the squared higgs mass .
there is , however , no dynamical explanation for the origin of the higgs effective potential , or for the associated breakdown of the ew symmetry . finally , the hierarchy of the fermion masses of the different generations remains unexplained .
warped extra dimensions provide a theoretically attractive framework for the solution of the hierarchy problem of the sm .
for one extra spatial dimension as in rs1  @xcite , the curvature @xmath8 in the extra dimension induces a warp factor on the four dimensional metric , which depends on the position in the extra dimension .
the coordinate point , @xmath9 , is associated with a trivial scale factor , leading to natural scales of the order of the planck scale .
the other boundary in the compact dimension , @xmath10 , is associated with natural scales that are smaller by an exponential factor @xmath11 . for natural values of @xmath8 of the order of the planck scale and values of @xmath12 , a higgs field , located at @xmath13
will naturally acquire a vev of the order of the weak scale .
neither the origin of the breakdown of the ew symmetry , nor the hierarchy of fermion masses , however , are explained by these considerations .
the propagation of fermions and gauge fields in the extra dimension enables a possible explanation for the fermion mass hierarchy .
indeed , chirality of the fermion zero modes is ensured by imposing an orbifold symmetry @xmath14 .
even fields under this orbifold symmetry acquire zero modes whose masses arise from the vev of the higgs field . for fermion fields , the equations of motion demand that fields of opposite chirality to those having zero modes are odd under the orbifold symmetry and therefore have no zero modes .
finally , localization in the fifth dimension is controlled by a mass parameter @xmath15 .
the variation of @xmath15 by factors of order one induces exponential variations in the overlap of the fermion wave functions with the higgs field wave function and therefore on the induced masses for the fermions  @xcite,@xcite .
third generation left handed chiral quark fields which couple strongly to the higgs are associated with a mass parameter @xmath16 , and therefore their zero - modes are localized towards the so - called infra - red ( ir ) brane at @xmath10 . on the contrary , first and second generation left handed chiral fermions have mass parameters @xmath17 and the zero modes are localized towards the so - called ultraviolet ( uv ) brane at @xmath9 .
gauge - higgs unification models  @xcite provide a solution to the last mysterious aspect of the sm , while leading to a dynamical origin for the higgs field effective potential .
the gauge symmetry of the sm is extended in the bulk and broken at the boundaries .
the higgs is associated with the fifth component of gauge fields in the direction of the broken gauge symmetry .
the gauge bosons associated with the broken symmetry are odd under the orbifold symmetry and the fifth component is guaranteed to be even , leading to the presence of massless scalar fields in the theory , with no potential at tree - level .
the coleman - weinberg higgs potential is then determined by quantum corrections .
for certain values of the fermion mass parameters , this effective potential leads to the higgs field acquiring a non - zero vev and to the proper generation of gauge boson and fermion masses
.    warped extra dimensions have a rich spectrum of four dimensional kaluza - klein ( kk ) excitations .
in particular , after ew symmetry breaking , the kk modes of the weak gauge fields mix with the would - be zero modes , inducing important modifications to the masses and couplings of gauge fields at tree - level .
such large modifications would render the theory inconsistent for values of the gauge field s masses at the reach of the lhc  @xcite .
recently , it was realized that these large corrections may be prevented by extending the weak gauge symmetry in the bulk of the extra dimension to incorporate the custodial symmetry : @xmath18  @xcite .
moreover , a left - right parity symmetry , @xmath19 is necessary to prevent large corrections to the bottom - quark couplings  @xcite .
a gauge extension of the ew sector of the model to @xmath20 provides a framework in which gauge - higgs unification and custodial symmetry are possible .
the higgs potential is fully calculable at one - loop level and a prediction for the higgs boson mass may be obtained .
consistency of the theory at the quantum level , however , demands that the possible large corrections to precision electroweak parameters induced by the fermions of the theory be computed .
it was recently shown that complete consistency may be obtained for certain values of the mass parameters associated with the fermions of the third generation  @xcite , provided the higgs remains light , as is expected in gauge - higgs unification models .    in this work ,
we compute the dynamically generated higgs potential in models similar to the ones previously analyzed in refs .
the higgs potential is calculated by means of a generalization of the framework discussed in ref .
@xcite and the specifics of our model are complementary to the one discussed in ref .
we find that a consistent breakdown of the ew symmetry , with a dynamical generation of masses of the gauge bosons and the third generation quarks may only be obtained for certain values of the fermion mass bulk parameters .
interestingly enough , these mass parameters are the same as those demanded by consistency with experimental observations at the quantum level  @xcite . moreover , the higgs boson is predicted to be light , with mass @xmath21 in the range to be probed by the tevatron and the lhc in the near future .
this article is organized as follows . in section 2
we describe our 5-dimensional ( 5d ) model and derive the gauge boson spectral functions .
furthermore , we analyze the @xmath22 gauge boson form factor at low energy , defining its coupling to the higgs field . in section 3
we derive the fermion spectral functions , necessary to compute the loop - induced higgs effective potential and the fermion mass spectrum .
we also compute the top quark form factor at low energy and the associated yukawa coupling .
section 4 deals with the explicit computation of the effective potential . in section 5
we present the numerical analysis of the effective potential for the higgs and the kk spectrum of the theory .
we reserve section 6 for our conclusions .
we are interested in a 5d gauge theory with gauge group @xmath0 .
the geometry of our space - time will be that of rs1  @xcite , with an orbifolded extra spatial dimension in the interval @xmath23 $ ] .
the metric for such a geometry is given by    @xmath24    where @xmath25 .
the space spanning the fifth dimension corresponds to a slice of , with branes attached at the two boundary points : @xmath9 ( uv brane ) and @xmath10 ( ir brane ) .
we place our gauge fields , @xmath26 and @xmath27 , in the bulk , where @xmath28 are the hermitian generators of the fundamental representation of @xmath29 and generically @xmath30=c(5)\delta^{\alpha,\beta}$ ] .
the explicit form of the generators  @xcite are given in appendix a.    our fermions @xmath31 also live in the bulk , and they transform under a representation @xmath32 of @xmath29 .
however , for the moment , we concentrate only on the gauge content of our model .
the phenomenologically required fermionic content will be discussed in detail in section 3 .
the 5d action is @xmath33 where @xmath34 and @xmath35 and @xmath36 are the 5d dimensionful gauge couplings .
the choice @xmath37 is a convenient choice , since it allows us to identify the eigenvalues of our generators as the weak isospin , with the four dimensional coupling given by @xmath38 .
any other choice for @xmath39 may be absorbed into a redefinition of the gauge fields or the gauge coupling leaving the physics unchanged .    to construct a realistic 4d low energy theory
, we will break the 5d @xmath40 gauge symmetry down to the subgroup @xmath41 on the ir brane and to @xmath42 on the uv brane , where @xmath43 is the hypercharge and @xmath44 is the @xmath45 associated charge which is accommodated to obtain the correct hypercharge .
we divide the generators of @xmath29 as follows : the generators of @xmath46 are denoted by @xmath47 and @xmath48 , while the generators from the coset @xmath49 are denoted by @xmath50 and @xmath51 .    in order to obtain the correct hypercharge and therefore the right weinberg angle @xmath52 , we need to rotate the fields @xmath53 and @xmath54  @xcite , @xmath55 @xmath56 where we will enforce @xmath57 to have even parity , corresponding to the hypercharge gauge boson in the 4d low energy limit . from now on we will drop the prime on @xmath58 , and it will be understood that @xmath59 refers to @xmath60 and @xmath61 .    to implement the breaking of @xmath29 on the two branes as stated above , we impose the following boundary conditions on the gauge fields :    @xmath62    these boundary conditions lead to 4d scalars @xmath63 originating from @xmath64 . at tree level , the @xmath63
s have a flat potential and therefore may be thought of as a dual description of goldstone bosons arising after spontaneous breaking of the global symmetry in 4d .
furthermore , @xmath65 and @xmath66 also have zero modes which will become massive as soon as the @xmath63 s develop a vev , leading ultimately to electroweak symmetry breaking .
part of our work consists of obtaining the mass spectrum of the theory in the presence of the vev of @xmath63 .
the higgs forms a bidoublet under @xmath67 , whose doublet component under @xmath68 is given by @xmath69 , with charge 0 under the @xmath70 .
the @xmath67 symmetry in principle implies that we can choose any one of the components to be the only non - zero one acquiring a vev .
however , we want the scalar higgs to be a neutral particle , therefore , we choose @xmath71 .
we kk - expand the fields  @xcite , @xmath72 where we have put the explicit dependence on @xmath73 for the scalars @xmath74 .
the normalization constant is chosen so that the scalars are canonically normalized , @xmath75 .
we wish to solve for the kk profiles @xmath76 so that the 5d action may be rewritten in terms of a tower of 4d fields @xmath77 whose kinetic and mass terms , after proper diagonalization , take the form : @xmath78 ^ 2 + \frac{1}{2 } m_n^2(h ) a_{\mu , n}^2 \right ) + \dots
\right \}\ ] ] this is done by solving the equations of motion in the presence of the scalar vev , and satisfying the boundary conditions implied by eqs .
( [ bc1 ] ) and ( [ bc2 ] ) .
it turns out that solving the equations of motion in the presence of @xmath79 is complicated , as these mix the neumann and dirichlet modes .
however , 5d gauge symmetry relates these solutions to solutions with @xmath80  @xcite . to that end , focusing on the gauge fields , we perform the following gauge transformation on them @xmath81 where @xmath82 is the gauge transformations that removes the vev of @xmath79 : @xmath83 .\ ] ]    in the @xmath80 gauge , the gauge kk profiles satisfy the following equation of motion : @xmath84 which is the same for both dirichlet and neumann modes .
we call the independent solutions @xmath85 and @xmath86 , which satisfy the following initial conditions : @xmath87 , @xmath88 , @xmath89 and @xmath90 . the explicit form of these solutions are given by  @xcite : @xmath91\\ s(x_5,z ) & = &   \frac{\pi z } { 2 k } a^{-1}(x_5 ) \left [   j_1 \left ( \frac{z } { k } \right )       y_1 \left ( \frac{z } { k a(x_5 ) } \right ) - y_1 \left ( \frac{z } { k } \right )      j_1 \left ( \frac{z } { k a(x_5 ) } \right ) \right ] \end{aligned}\ ] ] note from eq .
( [ om.tr ] ) that for @xmath9 , @xmath92 .
this implies that the gauge kk profiles satisfying the uv boundary conditions given in eq .
( [ bc1 ] ) , can be directly written in terms of the basis functions defined above as @xmath93 where the coefficients @xmath94 are normalization constants .
we can now calculate @xmath95 using eq .
( [ e.vrt ] ) .
the ir boundary conditions give us a system of algebraic equations for the coefficients @xmath94 .
the determinant of this system of equations must vanish to give us a nontrivial solution , and this condition in fact gives us the quantization condition for the masses @xmath96 . using this procedure we find for the gauge bosons :    @xmath97^{2}\times\nonumber\\ & & \left[c'(l , m_n ) s(l , m_n)\left(-2+(1+{s_\phi}^{2})\sin^2\left(\frac{\lambda_g h}{f_h}\right)\right)-s'(l , m_n ) c(l , m_n)\left(1+{s_\phi}^{2}\right)\sin^2\left(\frac{\lambda_g h}{f_h}\right)\right ] = 0\nonumber\\ & & \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where the `` higgs decay constant '' is defined as @xmath98 and @xmath99 .
furthermore , using the wronskian relation @xmath100 we can rewrite the quantization condition in a more convenient form : @xmath101^{2}\times & \nonumber\\ & & \nonumber\\ & \left[2a^{2}_lc'(l , m_n ) s(l , m_n ) + ( 1+{s_\phi}^2)m_n\sin^2\left(\frac{\lambda_g h}{f_h}\right)\right]=0&\nonumber\label{gaugedet}\\ & & \end{aligned}\ ] ]    therefore the kk mass spectrum for the @xmath22 and @xmath2 bosons , with the correct weinberg angle given by @xmath102 , is given by the zeroes of the following equations :    @xmath103    we will identify the first zero of these equations with the masses of @xmath22 and z , respectively , and we shall denote the masses of the first excited states as @xmath104 and @xmath105 , associated with the second zeroes of both equations .
we can gain some physical insight if we look at eq .
( [ gaugedet ] ) in the limit @xmath106 . in that case
, this equation reduces to , @xmath107 we can identify the zeroes coming from @xmath108 with the kk mass spectrum of the 4 gauge bosons belonging to @xmath109 which are even on both the uv and the ir branes . in the same way
, we identify the zeroes of @xmath110 with the kk spectrum of the 3 @xmath111 gauge bosons which are odd on the uv brane and even in the ir brane .
@xmath112 is identified with the kk spectrum of the 4 @xmath49 gauge bosons which are odd on both the uv and ir branes .
thus in eq .
( [ gaugedet ] ) we associate the photon kk spectrum with the zeroes of @xmath113 .      at small momenta , below the scale @xmath114 , the form factor for the @xmath22 gauge bosons can be approximated by @xmath115 from the last equation , we can find an analytic expression for the w - mass : @xmath116 from this expression we can calculate the higgs - w - w coupling , @xmath117 , at linear order , by simply taking the derivative of @xmath118 with respect to the vev of @xmath79 : @xmath119 where we used @xmath120 and in the last step note that in the limit @xmath121 we recover the sm higgs - w - w coupling .
we will discuss the physical implications of the above limiting case in section 5 .
the sm fermions are embedded in full representations of the bulk gauge group .
the presence of the @xmath122 subgroup of the full bulk gauge symmetry ensures the custodial protection of the @xmath1 parameter  @xcite . in order to have a custodial protection of the @xmath123 coupling
, the choice @xmath124 has to be enforced  @xcite .
an economical choice is to let the sm @xmath68 top - bottom doublet arise from a @xmath125 of @xmath0 , where the subscript refers to the @xmath70 charge . as discussed in  @xcite ,
putting the sm @xmath68 singlet top in the same @xmath29 multiplet as the doublet , without further mixing , is disfavored since for the correct value of the top quark mass this leads to a large negative contribution to the @xmath1 parameter at one loop .
hence we let the right - handed top quark arise from a second @xmath125 of @xmath0 .
the right handed bottom can come from a @xmath126 that allows us to write the bottom yukawa coupling . for simplicity , and because it allows the generation of the ckm mixing matrix , we make the same choice for the first two quark generations .
we therefore introduce in the quark sector three @xmath29 multiplets per generation as follows : @xmath127 @xmath128 where we show the decomposition under @xmath129 , and explicitly write the @xmath130 charges .
the @xmath131s are bidoublets of @xmath129 , with @xmath132 acting vertically and @xmath122 acting horizontally .
the @xmath133 s and @xmath134 s transform as @xmath135 and @xmath136 under @xmath129 , respectively , while @xmath137 and @xmath138 are @xmath129 singlets .
the superscripts , @xmath139 , label the three generations .
we also show the parities on the indicated 4d chirality , where @xmath140 and @xmath141 stands for odd and even parity conditions and the first and second entries in the bracket correspond to the parities in the uv and ir branes respectively .
let us stress that while odd parity is equivalent to a dirichlet boundary condition , the even parity is a linear combination of neumann and dirichlet boundary conditions , that is determined via the fermion bulk equations of motion as discussed below .
the boundary conditions for the opposite chirality fermion multiplet can be read off the ones above by a flip in both chirality and boundary condition , @xmath142 for example . in the absence of mixing among multiplets satisfying different boundary conditions ,
the sm fermions arise as the zero - modes of the fields obeying @xmath143 boundary conditions .
the remaining boundary conditions are chosen so that @xmath144 is preserved on the ir brane and so that mass mixing terms , necessary to obtain the sm fermion masses after ew symmetry breaking , can be written on the ir brane .
consistency of the above parity assignments with the original orbifold @xmath145 symmetry at the ir brane will be discussed in appendix b.    as remarked above , the zero - mode fermions can acquire ew symmetry breaking masses through mixing effects .
the most general @xmath146 invariant mass lagrangian at the ir brane
compatible with the boundary conditions  is , in the quark sector , @xmath147 ~ , \label{localizedmasses}\ ] ] where @xmath148 , @xmath149 and @xmath150 are dimensionless @xmath151 matrices , and matrix notation is employed . in appendix
b we will show how these mass terms may be generated from an @xmath29 invariant lagrangian using the spurion formalism . to prevent negative corrections to the @xmath1 parameter  @xcite ,  @xcite
, we will take @xmath150 to be the null matrix . in appendix c
however we briefly discuss the modifications of the effective higgs potential induced by a non - zero value of @xmath152 .
moreover since the higgs effective potential is most sensitive to the third generation , we will concentrate on this one , discarding family indices .    with the introduction of these brane mixing terms
, the different multiplets are now related via the equations of motion . in the case of a mass term involving @xmath153 , with the fields having profile functions @xmath154 and @xmath155 , the odd parity profile @xmath156 on the ir brane
is related to @xmath157 :    @xmath158    the odd parity we demand at the ir brane implies a dirichlet boundary condition for the function @xmath159 .
therefore , we can rewrite : @xmath160 and , similarly : @xmath161 eq .
( [ limit ] ) and ( [ limit2 ] ) can now be reinterpreted as the new boundary conditions for the profiles at the ir brane .
the fermions , like the gauge bosons , can be expanded in their kk basis : @xmath162 in the @xmath106 gauge , we redefine @xmath163 and we write our vector - fermionic fields in terms of chiral fields .
we can kk decompose the fermionic chiral components as , @xmath164 where @xmath165 is normalized by : @xmath166 therefore the profile function for the zero mode fermion corresponds to @xmath167 .
from the 5d action , eq .
( [ 5daction ] ) , concentrating on the free fermionic fields , we can derive the following first order coupled equations of motion for @xmath168 , @xmath169 we see from eq .
( [ 1order ] ) that we can redefine @xmath170 and relate the opposite chiral component of the same vector - like field by @xmath171 . for
the left handed field having dirichlet boundary conditions on the uv brane , we can derive a second order equation for the chiral component @xmath172 : @xmath173 \tilde{f}_{l , n } = 0\ ] ] the solution of which we shall call @xmath174 , with boundary conditions @xmath175 , @xmath176 .    similarly , we can redefine @xmath177 and then relate the opposite chirality via @xmath178 .
if the right - handed field fulfills dirichlet boundary conditions on the uv - brane , we can write the equation of motion for @xmath179 : @xmath180 \tilde{f}_{r , n } = 0.\ ] ] we shall correspondingly denote the solution to this equation with @xmath181 , fulfilling the boundary conditions @xmath182 , @xmath183 .    as emphasized before , the solutions of the opposite chirality ,
are related to these solutions via the the first order equations of motion , eqs .
( [ 1order ] ) , which we rewrite as @xmath184 .
here @xmath185 , and the @xmath186 is chosen depending on whether we want an odd ( - ) boundary condition on the uv brane for the left - handed or right - handed fermionic field .
the solution to eq .
( [ feom ] ) is given by  @xcite :    @xmath187.\ ] ]    the solution for eq .
( [ feom1 ] ) is given by eq .
( [ sm ] ) , with the replacement @xmath188 .    before proceeding with the gauge transformations as was done with the gauge fields
, we would like to discuss what is required of the gauge transformation for the fermions .
the boundary conditions are explicitly given on the physical fermion which is an isospin eigenvector .
hence , the first step is to identify the different components of the vector @xmath31 with the doublets , triplets and singlets as required from eq .
( [ multiplets ] ) .
second , we need to assign functions to the different components of the multiplets consistent with the boundary conditions for the fermions given in eq .
( [ multiplets ] ) . the basis @xmath189 and @xmath190
are simply related by exponentials , therefore , the functions @xmath189 , given by @xmath191 and @xmath192 , are related to @xmath190 via @xmath193 \tilde{s}_{\pm m } ( \dot{\tilde{s}}_{\pm m})$ ] .
odd and even solutions ( @xmath194 or @xmath195 ) can then be assigned to the component functions of the multiplets @xmath196 , @xmath197 and @xmath198 , depending on the boundary parities .
for example , for a left handed component having boundary conditions @xmath199 or @xmath200 , since the function is odd at the uv brane , we assign a solution @xmath201 to that component of the left - handed multiplet . if the boundary condition is @xmath202 , or @xmath203 we need to look at the chiral companion @xmath204 or @xmath205 . in this case ,
our right handed fermion is odd on the uv brane .
the relationship between the left and the right handed components are as defined above via derivatives .
therefore , we assign @xmath206 to the left - handed fermion . following this procedure
, we can assign either @xmath191 or @xmath207 to each component of the multiplets .
this procedure defines our three fermion multiplets in the @xmath106 gauge as the vector functions : @xmath208\\ \\
\\ f_{2,r}(x_{5},0)=\left[\begin{array}{c } c_{6}s_{-m_{2}}\\ c_{7}s_{-m_{2}}\\ c_{8}s_{-m_{2}}\\ c_{9}s_{-m_{2}}\\ c_{10}\dot{s}_{m_{2}}\end{array}\right ] \end{array } & & f_{3,r}(x_{5},0)=\left[\begin{array}{c } c_{11}s_{-m_{3}}\\ c_{12}s_{-m_{3}}\\ c_{13}s_{-m_{3}}\\ c_{14}s_{-m_{3}}\\ c_{15}s_{-m_{3}}\\ c_{16}s_{-m_{3}}\\ c_{17}s_{-m_{3}}\\c_{18}s_{-m_{3}}\\ c_{19}s_{-m_{3}}\\ c_{20}\dot{s}_{m_{3}}\end{array}\right]\end{aligned}\ ] ] where , as for the gauge bosons , the @xmath209 are normalization constants
. the opposite chiralities have opposite boundary conditions and can be read from these ones .
the boundary conditions as written above , for example , for the vector components of @xmath210 are the boundary conditions on the isospin eigenvector with charges @xmath211 , @xmath212 , @xmath213 , @xmath214 , @xmath215 under @xmath129 , respectively .
however , in the basis of our generators , the eigenvector with spin @xmath216 under @xmath217 , for example , is given by : @xmath218.\ ] ]    to simplify matters , so that the boundary conditions can be taken to be on the eigenvector : @xmath219\ ] ] the transformation @xmath220 needs to be in the basis consistent with eq .
( [ f.can ] ) , or we can also think about this as changing the fermion vector functions given in eq .
( [ f.exp.bc ] ) to the basis of our generators .
this means that we have to first understand how the eigenvectors of @xmath221 decompose in the canonical basis for both the @xmath125 and the @xmath126 .    for the @xmath125 fermions , the basis transformation for @xmath196 , @xmath197
is given by @xmath222 for @xmath126 , the transformation matrix for @xmath198 is given by @xmath223    therefore , once the uv boundary conditions define the vectors as in eq .
( [ f.exp.bc ] ) , we change bases to be able to implement the gauge transformation and then transform back so that the ir boundary conditions can be imposed . using the transformations defined in eq .
( [ a.mat ] ) and ( [ b.mat ] ) , we can write the final fermion vector functions in the presence of the vev of @xmath79 as : @xmath224 applying the boundary conditions at @xmath225 , taking into account the mass mixing terms from eq .
( [ localizedmasses ] ) and using the procedure defined in eqs .
( [ limit ] ) and ( [ limit2 ] ) , we derive the conditions on @xmath226 : @xmath227 where the superscripts denote the vector components .    asking that the determinant of this system of equations vanishes so that we get a non - trivial solution
, we notice that all dependence on the prefactors @xmath228 $ ] relating @xmath229 and @xmath230 drops out , and thus we conclude that one of the following equations should vanish : @xmath231 ^ 2=0&\label{exotickk3}\\ & 2\tilde{s}_{m_{3}}\left[m_{b_2}^2\tilde{s}_{-m_{3}}\tilde{s}'_{-m_{1 } } + \tilde{s}_{-m_{1}}\tilde{s}'_{-m_{3}}\right ] -m_{b_2}^2\tilde{s}'_{-m_{1}}\sin^2\left(\frac{\lambda_f h}{f_h}\right)=0&\label{bottomkk}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath232+&\nonumber\\ & \left[m_{b_2}^2\tilde{s}_{m_{2}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{3}}\tilde{s}'_{-m_{2 } } + m_{b_1}^2\left(2m_{b_2}^2\tilde{s}_{m_{1}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{3 } } \tilde{s}'_{-m_{1 } } + \tilde{s}'_{-m_{3 } } + 2\tilde{s}_{m_{1}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{1}}\tilde{s}'_{-m_{3}}-\right.\right . & \nonumber\\ & \left.\left.\tilde{s}_{m_{2}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{2}}\tilde{s}'_{-m_{3}}\right ) \right]\sin^2\left(\frac{\lambda_f h}{f_h}\right)-m_{b_1}^2\tilde{s}'_{-m_{3}}\sin^4\left(\frac{\lambda_f h}{f_h}\right)=0&\label{topkk}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where for simplicity we did not write the dependence on l and z and furthermore , we have used the crowian : [ e.cr ] -_m(x_5,z)_-m(x_5,z ) + _ m(x_5,z ) _
-m(x_5,z ) = 1 . in the following , and for simplicity
, we shall omit the tildes and refer to the solutions @xmath233 by @xmath191 .    the same value @xmath234 is found in the fermionic case , so from now on @xmath235 . the solutions to eqs .
( [ exotickk1 ] ) , ( [ exotickk2 ] ) and ( [ exotickk3 ] ) can be interpreted as the kk spectrum of exotic fermions .
we shall name these states @xmath236 , @xmath237 and @xmath238 , respectively .
eq .  ( [ bottomkk ] ) is the kk mass spectrum for the bottom quark and eq .
( [ topkk ] ) gives the kk spectrum for the top quark .
we can rewrite eqs .
( [ bottomkk ] ) and ( [ topkk ] ) in the same form as the gauge bosons :    @xmath239    where @xmath240    @xmath241\\ f_{2 } ( z^2)&=&-m_{b_1}^2s'_{-m_{3}}\\   f_{d}(z^2)&= & 2\left[m_{b_1}^2s_{m_{1}}\left(-1 + s_{m_{2}}s_{-m_{2}}\right)\left(m_{b_2}^2s_{-m_{3}}s'_{-m_{1 } } +        s_{-m_{1}}s'_{-m_{3}}\right)+\right.\nonumber\\        & & \left.s_{m_{2}}s'_{-m_{2}}\left(m_{b_2}^2\left(-1 + s_{m_{1}}s_{-m_{1}}\right)s_{-m_{3}}- \frac{a^2_{l}}{z^2}s_{-m_{1 } }        s'_{m_{1 } }        s'_{-m_{3}}\right)\right]\end{aligned}\ ] ]    equations ( [ gsf ] ) , ( [ bottomform ] ) and ( [ topforms ] ) are the starting point for computing the one - loop effective potential for the scalars @xmath63 .
it is physically very illuminating to interpret the origin of the fermionic resonances if we contemplate the fermionic determinant in the case @xmath106 : @xmath242 we recall that the way we defined the initial fermionic functions ( @xmath191 ) was via the boundary condition on the uv brane and the chirality .
however , since we are in the @xmath106 gauge , we can use the boundary conditions on the ir brane to further give us the final equations the functions have to satisfy : @xmath243 we can now interpret eq .
( [ hzero1 ] ) in a simple way : the first equation in the first line provides the mass spectrum for the singlet right handed bottom .
this with the first equation in the second line provide the mass spectrum of the triplet components @xmath244 , @xmath245 of @xmath198 .
the second equation in the first line may be identified with the mass spectrum of the singlet @xmath246 and its modification from the mixing mass term with @xmath247 .
it can be shown from this equation that the light top resonances will be mostly the kk modes of the right handed top . from the first equation in the third line we get the mass spectrum for @xmath248 .
additionally we can also see here the mixing of the bidoublets @xmath249 and @xmath250 .
the second equation in the second line is related to the mass spectrum for the @xmath251 doublet and its mixing with @xmath252 .
the second equation in the third line may be identified as the spectrum of a new fermionic state coming from the doublet - doublet mixing between @xmath253 and @xmath254 .      at small momenta ,
the solution to eq .
( [ sm ] ) takes the form : @xmath255 replacing this in eq .
( [ topkk ] ) , keeping only quadratic terms in z and for simplicity neglecting the small @xmath256 effects , we find that the top quark spectral equation reduces to : @xmath257\sin^2\left(\frac{\lambda h}{f_h}\right)-m_{b_{1}}^{2}\sin^4\left(\frac{\lambda h}{f_h}\right)=0,\ ] ] where a and b are coefficients given by : @xmath258 solving eq .
( [ top.mass ] ) for @xmath259 , we find that the top mass takes the form @xmath260 which can also be written as @xmath261}.\ ] ]    this expression is similar to the one obtained in a related model in ref .
@xcite . from this expression
we can calculate the yukawa coupling of the top , @xmath262 , at linear order , by simply taking the derivative of @xmath263 with respect to @xmath79 : @xmath264 where we note that in the limit @xmath265 , we recover the sm top yukawa coupling .
the coleman  weinberg potential in 5d kk theories ( see for instance @xcite ) takes the form : @xmath267.\ ] ] here @xmath268 is the number of degrees of freedom of a given particle , @xmath186 depends on whether we are considering bosons or fermions and @xmath269 is the spectral function encoding the spectrum in the presence of @xmath79 .
we showed in the previous section that in the 5d framework the spectral functions encoding the kk spectrum in the presence of the higgs vev are given by :    @xmath270    thus , the scalar potential for the pseudo - goldstone can be written as : @xmath271+\right.\right.\nonumber\\ & & \left.\left .
\log\big[1 + f_{b}(-p^2 ) \sin^2\left(\frac{\lambda h}{f_h}\right)\big]\right.\big\ } + \frac{6}{(4\pi)^2}\log\big[1 + f_{w}(-p^2 ) \sin^2\left(\frac{\lambda h}{f_h}\right)\big]+\right.\nonumber\\ & & \left.\frac{3}{(4\pi)^2}\log\big[1 + f_{z}(-p^2 ) \sin^2\left(\frac{\lambda h}{f_h}\right)\big]\right.\big)\end{aligned}\ ] ] the form factors @xmath272 and @xmath273 for the gauge bosons are given by eq .
( [ gsf ] ) , and @xmath274 , @xmath275 and @xmath276 for the fermions are given by eq .
( [ bottomform ] ) and ( [ topforms ] ) .
we note here that the main contribution to the potential from the fermionic sector is due to the top quark
. therefore , the first two fermion multiplets , @xmath277 and @xmath278 are the most important for fixing the higgs potential .
[ 0.8 ]    [ 0.8 ]    [ 0.8 ]    [ 0.8 ]    [ 0.8 ]    [ 0.8 ]    [ 0.8 ]    [ 0.8 ]    [ 0.8 ]    our goal is to find a non - trivial minimum of the higgs effective potential that will break @xmath279 down to @xmath130 .
the relevant parameters which control the model are @xmath148 , @xmath149 , @xmath280 , @xmath281 , @xmath282 and @xmath283 , where @xmath284 , @xmath285 , @xmath286 and @xmath287 is the length of the extra dimension .
looking at the potential we immediately see that @xmath288 is a non - trivial extremum .
when @xmath289 corresponds to a maximum , this extremum can be a minimum .
however this would lead to a non - standard effective low - energy theory , since as seen from the form factors , and from eq .
( [ hww ] ) , the higgs coupling to the gauge bosons vanishes at linear order .
therefore , we shall concentrate only in the regions of parameter space such that @xmath290 with @xmath291 . after obtaining a non - trivial minimum
, we calculate @xmath8 by finding the first zero of eq .
( [ gsf ] ) and setting this mass equal to the @xmath22 mass  @xcite .
this is the mass that the @xmath22 zero - mode gets from interacting with the higgs vev .
since the relationship between the @xmath2 and the @xmath22 form factors remains the same as in the sm , we also recover a consistent mass for the @xmath2 boson .
having obtained @xmath8 , we calculate the top - quark mass , given by the first zero of eq .
( [ topforms ] ) , and demand that its value is in the phenomenological range @xmath292 $ ] gev .
we take such a wide range since we consider the result of our calculation to be associated with the running top - quark mass evaluated at a scale of the order of the weak scale . due to the strong gauge coupling
, the running top - quark mass varies rapidly between values of @xmath293  gev , for a scale of the order of a few tev , to values of @xmath294  gev , for a scale of order of the top quark pole mass @xmath295 .
furthermore , we also calculate the bottom quark mass , given by the first zero of eq .
( [ bottomform ] ) , and demand it to be in the phenomenological range @xmath296 $ ] gev .
the higgs mass is given by the second derivative of the effective potential with respect to @xmath79 , evaluated at the vev .
as we will show , somewhat smaller higgs boson mass values tend to be associated with smaller values of the top quark mass , a reflection of the power dependece of the low - energy higgs quartic coupling on the top quark mass .
the higgs mass and the kk spectrum are seen to be only weakly dependent on variations of the bottom quark mass in the above defined range .
although we will display all results consistent with the observed quark and gauge boson low energy spectrum , we will concentrate on points in parameter space in the linear regime , such that @xmath297 . by linear regime
we mean the regime where higher order interactions involving the higgs field , @xmath298 with @xmath299 , can be neglected and , furthermore , the couplings of the higgs with gauge bosons and fermions are very close to the ones in the sm . therefore , in this regime
the direct search lep bounds on the higgs mass apply , and @xmath300 gev .
in addition , the low energy effective theory is well approximated by the sm , with renormalizable couplings and a light higgs boson .
this allow us also to compare our results with those of ref .
@xcite where they performed calculations in the linear regime as defined above .
we can interpret @xmath301 as the associated mass scale of our theory and of the order of the natural uv cut off of the low - energy , sm - like effective theory .
the scale @xmath301 is inversely proportional to @xmath302 and therefore as we move away from the linear regime , we are pushing the uv cut - off lower and additionally causing the linear couplings of the higgs to become smaller .
therefore , the theory becomes increasingly non - renormalizable , which leads to the need of taking into account higher order kk - states ( beyond zero - modes ) in the calculation of low - energy processes , thus making connection with sm predictions harder .
when @xmath303 tev , kk bosonic and fermionic resonances of exotic and sm fields have a chance to be detected in the next generation colliders such as the lhc ; hence , we will be specifically interested in those regions .
we performed two major numerical parameter scans . in the first one we scanned the parameter space for values
@xmath304 $ ] with @xmath139 and @xmath305 $ ] .
we used @xmath306 in our numerical calculations for the masses since the results are invariant under variations of @xmath307 $ ]   remains approximately constant ] .
the first scan was done with a coarse grid and before we discuss details of our numerical results , we would like to point out that the effective potential is a completely well behaved function of all the parameters , therefore , we expect that the gaps in our scanned space are smoothly filled .
we found that even though for some value of the other parameters , non - trivial minima existed for nearly all the regions of @xmath308 and @xmath309 , we only found phenomenologically consistent gauge bosons , top and bottom quark masses in the following regions of parameter space : @xmath310 , @xmath311 , @xmath312 , @xmath313 and @xmath314 .
though the results show a skew symmetry between positive and negative values , we decided to concentrate on negative values of @xmath315 and @xmath316 , since interestingly enough , this is the region which is consistent with electroweak precision measurements  @xcite . furthermore
, positive values of @xmath317 lead to a smaller overlap of the left - handed top and bottom zero modes with physics at the ir brane , leading to a stronger suppression of potentially dangerous flavor changing operators  @xcite .
therefore , it is in this region where we performed a more thorough scan taking smaller steps for the @xmath318 .    in figure
[ figure : tophiggs ] we notice a clear relationship between the higgs and the top - quark masses , where on the plot we have included the bigger coarse scan of parameter space . focusing on the interesting phenomenological region
, we see in figure [ figure : higgstop ] that in the linear regime we get higgs masses that tend to be above 115  gev , which is above the experimental bound from lep , and below 160 gev .
furthermore , there is a somewhat weak dependence of the higgs mass values on the precise value of the running top quark mass .
higgs mass values closer to the current experimental bound are obtained for the smallest values of the top quark mass in the phenomenologically allowed range . in figure
[ figure : kahiggs ] , we manifestly see that in the linear regime we may obtain masses for the higgs which are compatible with @xmath319 .
figure  [ figure : hb1 ] provides us with information about the 5d parameter @xmath148 which as increased moves the minimum to higher values of @xmath302 , getting into the non - linear regime .
we conclude that to remain in the linear regime , we can not have an arbitrarily high @xmath148 boundary mass parameter .
the behavior @xmath320 is seen in figure  [ figure : kah ] where , moreover , we notice that for the linear regime , values of @xmath321 tev are obtained .
this low value of @xmath301 will lead to interesting phenomenology for the decays of light kk - fermions and kk - bosons .    in figure
[ figure : c1c2 ] we see that a selected region of the plane @xmath322 is suitable for minimizing the effective potential with the experimentally observed @xmath22 , @xmath2 , top and bottom masses , and that the linear regime basically applies through out this region . as emphasized before , @xmath323 and @xmath324 are the ones preferred by consistency with electroweak precision measurements  @xcite . in figure
[ figure : c2c3 ] we noticed that the same phenomenologically accepted region for @xmath315 in the @xmath325 plane with @xmath326 is chosen and it is also homogenously covered in the linear regime .    figures  [ figure : w1t1 ] and [ figure : w1e1 ] are very interesting for collider phenomenology and therefore deserve special attention .
even though we havent included the plot , we calculated the mass of the @xmath22 first excited kk state numerically and verified the relation @xmath327 .
if the masses of these fermions are below the black line denoting @xmath328 , the decay of @xmath329 and @xmath330 to pairs of these fermions is kinematically available .
note here however , that for @xmath331 , @xmath332 is always greater than @xmath328 .
moreover , these exotic fermions are unstable . the decay products of @xmath333 are analyzed in ref .
the first top kk excited state , will mainly decay to zt , ht , wb .
the charged 5/3 fermions of @xmath334 will necessarily decay to wt from charge conservation , leading to interesting phenomenology  @xcite .
in addition , the lightest kk quark state @xmath335 , the top quark ( via its right- and left - handed couplings ) and the bottom quark ( via its left - handed coupling ) will be included in the kk gluon decay products .
this is a distinctive feature of this model when compared with the predominant decay into right - handed top quarks in the models considered in refs .
in this article , we computed the one - loop coleman weinberg potential for the higgs field in a specific model of gauge - higgs unification in warped extra dimensions .
we chose the specific group @xmath336 , which allows the introduction of custodial symmetries protecting the precision electroweak observables as well as a higgs field with the proper quantum numbers under the electroweak gauge groups .
as a first step , we computed the spectral functions of the fermions and gauge bosons of the theory when the higgs field acquires a vev .
these are then used to calculate the effective potential for the higgs .
we demand non - trivial minima that lead to the proper values of the gauge boson and fermion masses in the low energy theory .
this requirement leads to a selection of a restricted region of parameters .
interestingly enough , the selected regions of parameters coincide with the ones previously selected in order to obtain good agreement with the precision electroweak observables .
our main result is the computation of the higgs and kk mass spectra . demanding that the kk gauge bosons be accessible at the lhc and also that the effective potential minimum be in the linear regime associated with a sm - like low energy effective theory , we obtain higgs boson masses which are between the present experimental bound on this quantity and about 160 gev .
this range of masses will be tested first at the tevatron and then at the lhc collider in the near future .
the kk fermion spectrum also shows interesting features .
we find that there are kk fermions which become much lighter than the kk gauge bosons .
in particular , the lightest kk mode of the top becomes light enough so that the kk gauge bosons will decay into it .
there is an additional light kk fermion , which may become light enough for the gauge kk bosons to decay into it , which has exotic quantum numbers under hypercharge , leading for instance to the presence of a light fermion with charge @xmath337 with interesting phenomenological properties .
we would like to thank debajyoti choudhury , ben lillie , arjun menon , jing shu , tim tait and particularly marcela carena , eduardo ponton and jose santiago for useful discussions and comments .
work at anl is supported in part by the us doe , div .  of hep ,
contract de - ac02 - 06ch11357 .
this work was also supported in part by the u.s .
department of energy through grant no .
de - fg02 - 90er40560 .
the generators of the fundamental representation of @xmath29 , with @xmath338=c(5)\delta^{\alpha\beta}$ ] , are given by :    @xmath339,\nonumber\\ t^{{\hat a}}_{i , j}&=&-i\sqrt{\frac{c(5)}{2}}(\delta^{{\hat a}}_i\delta^5_j-\delta^{{\hat a}}_j\delta^5_i),\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath50 @xmath340 and @xmath341 @xmath342 are the generators of @xmath49 and @xmath67 respectively .
since the higgs has positive parity , in order to preserve the @xmath145 orbifold symmetry , we need to ensure that the product of the parities of the fermions coupled via the higgs is always positive .
the higgs profile is doubly exponentially suppressed on the uv brane , therefore , we will restrict ourselves to discussion of parities on the ir brane .    concentrating on the parities of the first two multiplets given in eq .
( [ multiplets ] ) , we notice that the product of the fermion parities coupled by the higgs is not positive . one way to fix this would be to switch the parities for the @xmath67 singlet components : @xmath343\quad\leftrightarrow\quad [ + , + ] .\ ] ] due to the introduction of the brane mass terms as in eq .
( [ localizedmasses ] ) , and looking at eq .
( [ f.ir.bc ] ) we note that the switch in parity is exactly equivalent to taking @xmath344 .
thus the physical results presented in this work are invariant under the switch of parity with just the above mentioned change in @xmath148 .
another way to understand the realization of the @xmath145 symmetry is via the spurion formalism .
we introduce a spurion field transforming in the fundamental representation of @xmath29 , and acquiring a very large vev in the @xmath67 singlet direction , breaking the @xmath29 gauge symmetry to @xmath67 on the ir brane .
we also introduce local fermionic degrees of freedom on the brane and write large local mass terms involving the spurion , between these degrees of freedom and the ones propagating in the bulk .
the fermion parities are chosen to be those preserving @xmath145 . by using a procedure similar to the one outlined in eqs .
( [ delta ] ) ,  ( [ limit ] ) and ( [ limit2 ] ) , we can now change the bulk fermion ir boundary conditions while preserving @xmath145 to give the model we are considering in this work .
this mechanism would allow us to change the ir boundary conditions not just of the @xmath67 singlet fields in the @xmath345 s , but also of the bidoublets in the @xmath345 s or in the @xmath346 .
for the case of the @xmath67 singlet fields in the @xmath345 s , we need to add @xmath29 singlet fermions on the ir brane , that couple to the @xmath347 s via the spurion field . for the case of the bidoublets in the @xmath346 or in the @xmath345 s , we need to add local @xmath345 s and singlet fermions on the ir brane , and couple them appropriately to the bulk @xmath346 or @xmath345 s via gauge invariant masses or couplings to the spurion field ( @xmath29 singlet fields are necessary to remove unwanted degrees of freedom ) . in this way , one could start with the opposite ir parities for the three bidoublets to the ones given in eq .
( [ multiplets ] ) , thus preserving the @xmath145 symmetry , and reach the choice of bulk fermion boundary conditions used in this work .
the same spurion mechanism can be used to write the brane mass terms in eq .
( [ localizedmasses ] ) in an @xmath29 invariant way . a spurion field which is a @xmath345 under @xmath29 ,
can be used to write the bidoublet - bidoublet mixing brane mass term , @xmath149 , between the @xmath345 and the @xmath346 multiplets .
the spurion field is coupled to these two via a yukawa type interaction which can be adjusted to give @xmath348 .
this field can be the same as the one that is used to change the parities of the fermions as described in the last paragraph .
the same procedure , but now using a @xmath349 of @xmath29 can be used to generate the mass mixing terms between the singlets , @xmath148 .
the @xmath350 required can be thought of as arising from a tensor product of the @xmath345 spurion field : @xmath351 .
note that this mechanism will not generate a localized bare mass for the higgs due to gauge invariance .
we also studied the effects of flipping the parities of @xmath248 as was done in the context of ref .
@xcite . in this case , the parity assignments for the rest of our fermionic content remains the same except for @xmath248 which now takes the form , @xmath352 if we keep the same boundary mass terms as in eq .
( [ localizedmasses ] ) and calculate the fermionic spectral functions we obtain , @xmath353 ^ 2=0&\\ & 2\tilde{s}_{m_{3}}\left[m_{b_2}^2\tilde{s}_{-m_{3}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{1 } } + \tilde{s}_{-m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{3}}\right ] -m_{b_2}^2\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{1}}\sin^2\left(\frac{\lambda_f h}{f_h}\right)=0&\\ & 2\left[m_{b_2}^2\tilde{s}_{-m_{3}}\left(-\tilde{s}_{m_{2 } } + \tilde{s}_{m_{1}}\tilde{s}_{m_{2}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{1}}+m_{b_{1}}^{2}\tilde{s}_{m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{m_{2}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{1}}\right)+\right.&\nonumber\\ & \left.\tilde{s}_{-m_{1}}\left(\tilde{s}_{m_{2}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{m_{1}}+m_{b_{1}}^{2}\tilde{s}_{m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{m_{2}}\right)\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{3}}\right]&\nonumber\\ & + \left(m_{b_{2}}^{2}\tilde{s}_{m_{2}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{3}}-m_{b_{1}}^{2}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{m_{2}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{3}}\right)\sin^2\left(\frac{\lambda_f h}{f_h}\right)=0&\end{aligned}\ ] ] from these expressions we expect that the only non - trivial ew breaking vacua will be generated when @xmath354 which , as discussed in section 5 , leads to a theory which is highly non - renormalizable .
we performed limited numerical analysis which confirmed this expectation .    for completeness and as a reference for future work we write the expression for the determinant in the case of a non - zero mass mixing boundary term @xmath152 as in eq .
( [ localizedmasses ] ) . for simplicity
, we turn off the singlet mass mixing @xmath355 . keeping parities as in our original model , we derive the following fermionic spectral functions , @xmath356=0&\\ & 2\tilde{s}_{m_{3}}\left[m_{b_2}^2\tilde{s}_{-m_{3}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{2}}+m_{b_3}^2\tilde{s}_{-m_{2}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{3 } } + \tilde{s}_{-m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{2}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{3}}\right]&\nonumber\\ & -m_{b_2}^2\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{2}}\sin^2\left(\frac{\lambda_f h}{f_h}\right)=0&\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath357&\nonumber\\ & + \left(m_{b_{2}}^{4}\tilde{s}_{m_{1}}\tilde{s}_{m_{2}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{3}}^2\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{2}}^2+m_{b_{2}}^{2}\tilde{s}_{-m_{3}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{2}}\left ( \tilde{s}_{m_{2}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{2}}\right.\right.&\nonumber\\ & \left.\left.-2m_{b_{3}}^2\tilde{s}_{m_{1}}\left(\tilde{s}_{m_{2}}(-2+\tilde{s}_{m_{1}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{1 } } ) \tilde{s}_{-m_{2}}-\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{m_{2}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{2}}\right)\right)\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{3}}\right . & \nonumber\\ & \left.+ m_{b_{3}}^{2}\left(m_{b_{3}}^2\tilde{s}_{m_{1}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{2}}\left(2 - 2\tilde{s}_{m_{1}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{1}}+\tilde{s}_{m_{2}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{2}}\right)+ \dot{\tilde{s}}_{m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{2}}\left(-2\tilde{s}_{m_{2}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{2}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{1}}+\right.\right.\right . &
\nonumber\\ & \left.\left.\left .
\tilde{s}_{m_{1}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{m_{2}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{2}}+\dot{\tilde{s}}_{m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{m_{2}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{1 } } \dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{2}}\right)\right)\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{3}}^{2}\right)\sin^2\left(\frac{\lambda_f h}{f_h}\right)&\nonumber\\ & -m_{b_{3}}^{2}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{3}}(m_{b_{2}}^{2}\tilde{s}_{m_{1}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{3}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{2}}+(m_{b_{3}}^{2 } \tilde{s}_{m_{1}}\tilde{s}_{-m_{2}}+\dot{\tilde{s}}_{m_{1}}\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{2}})\dot{\tilde{s}}_{-m_{3}})\sin^4\left(\frac{\lambda_f h}{f_h}\right)=0&\end{aligned}\ ] ]    due to the term proportional to @xmath358 , we expect to have ewsb in this case , with non - trivial minima that for some region of parameter space could lie in the linear regime as in the model studied in this work .
r.  barate _
[ lep working group for higgs boson searches ] , phys .
b * 565 * , 61 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ex/0306033 ] .
l.  randall and r.  sundrum , phys .
lett .   * 83 * , 3370 ( 1999 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9905221 ] .
n.  s.  manton , nucl .
b * 158 * , 141 ( 1979 ) ; y.  hosotani , phys .
b * 126 * , 309 ( 1983 ) ; h.  hatanaka , t.  inami and c.  s.  lim , mod .
a * 13 * , 2601 ( 1998 ) [ arxiv : hep - th/9805067 ] ; i.  antoniadis , k.  benakli and m.  quiros , new j.  phys .   * 3 * , 20 ( 2001 ) [ arxiv : hep - th/0108005 ] ; m.  kubo , c.  s.  lim and h.  yamashita , mod .
a * 17 * , 2249 ( 2002 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0111327 ] ; g.  von gersdorff , n.  irges and m.  quiros , nucl .
b * 635 * , 127 ( 2002 ) [ arxiv : hep - th/0204223 ] ; c.  csaki , c.  grojean and h.  murayama , phys .
d * 67 * , 085012 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0210133 ] ; n.  haba , m.  harada , y.  hosotani and y.  kawamura , nucl .
b * 657 * , 169 ( 2003 ) [ erratum - ibid .
b * 669 * , 381 ( 2003 ) ] [ arxiv : hep - ph/0212035 ] ; c.  a.  scrucca , m.  serone and l.  silvestrini , nucl .
b * 669 * , 128 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0304220 ] ; c.  a.  scrucca , m.  serone , l.  silvestrini and a.  wulzer , jhep * 0402 * , 049 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - th/0312267 ] ; n.  haba , y.  hosotani , y.  kawamura and t.  yamashita , phys .
d * 70 * , 015010 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0401183 ] ; c.  biggio and m.  quiros , nucl .
b * 703 * , 199 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0407348 ] ; y.  hosotani , s.  noda and k.  takenaga , phys .
b * 607 * , 276 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0410193 ] ; g.  cacciapaglia , c.  csaki and s.  c.  park , jhep * 0603 * , 099 ( 2006 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0510366 ] ; g.  panico , m.  serone and a.  wulzer , nucl .  phys .
b * 739 * , 186 ( 2006 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0510373 ] ; g.  panico , m.  serone and a.  wulzer , arxiv : hep - ph/0605292 ; r.  contino , y.  nomura and a.  pomarol , nucl .
b * 671 * , 148 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0306259 ] .
h.  davoudiasl , j.  l.  hewett and t.  g.  rizzo , phys .
b * 473 * , 43 ( 2000 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9911262 ] .
k.  agashe , a.  delgado , m.  j.  may and r.  sundrum , jhep * 0308 * , 050 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0308036 ] .
k.  agashe , r.  contino , l.  da rold and a.  pomarol , phys .
b * 641 * , 62 ( 2006 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0605341 ] .
m.  carena , e.  ponton , j.  santiago and c.  e.  m.  wagner , arxiv : hep - ph/0701055 .
r.  contino , l.  da rold and a.  pomarol , phys .
d * 75 * , 055014 ( 2007 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0612048 ] .
a.  falkowski , phys .
d * 75 * , 025017 ( 2007 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0610336 ] . k.  agashe and r.  contino , nucl .
b * 742 * , 59 ( 2006 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0510164 ] .
y.  hosotani and m.  mabe , phys .
b * 615 * , 257 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0503020 ] .
a.  pomarol , phys .
b * 486 * , 153 ( 2000 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9911294 ] .
m.  e.  peskin and t.  takeuchi , phys .
d * 46 * , 381 ( 1992 ) .


today the universe appears spatially flat undergoing an accelerated expansion .
there are many measurements proving this pictures @xcite . according to the successful cosmological model @xcite , there are two main ingredients in this scenario , namely dark matter ( dm ) and the cosmological constant @xmath1 ( dark energy ) . on the galactic scales ,
the evolution is driven by the usual newtonian gravitational potential , but it needs hypothesizing the existence of dm to obtain a good experimental agreement .
a good model for the galactic distribution of dm , in the framework of general relativity ( gr ) , is the navarro - frenk - white model ( nfw model ) @xcite .
however in recent years , the effort to give a physical explanation to the cosmic acceleration has attracted an amount of interest in so called fourth order gravity ( fog ) , and particularly the @xmath2-gravity , where @xmath3 is a generic function of ricci scalar @xmath4 .
these alternative models have been considered as a viable mechanism to explain the cosmic acceleration .
apart the cosmological dynamics , a systematic analysis of such theories were performed at short scale and in the low energy limit @xcite .    in particular the paper _ most general fourth order theory of gravity at low energy _
@xcite analyzed the gravitational potential , induced by a @xmath5-gravity , where for sake of simplicity we set @xmath6 , @xmath7 and @xmath8 , generalizing the hilbert einstein lagrangian .
the added quantities are the ricci tensor @xmath9 and the riemann tensor @xmath10 . as astrophysical application
the modified potential has been used to build the rotation curves for the milky way and ngc 3198 @xcite . in this paper
any galactic component ( bulge , disk and dm component ) required an onerous numerical computation since the gauss theorem is not applicable in the fog .
the aim of the present paper is to point out the fundamental topics of the adopted strategy using the software _ _ mathematica__@xmath0 .    our analysis
is then organized as follows . in section
[ theory ] we report the fundamental topics of the fourth order gravity : the field equations and their newtonian approximation , the solution for the gravitational potential and the mathematical models for the galactic componets . in section [ computation ]
we build we build the code for the numerical simulation and in section [ data ] there is the data fit between our theoretical curves and the data of the rotation curve of the milky way and the galaxy ngc 3190 . finally in section [ conclusions ]
we report the conclusions .
let us start with a general class of fog given by the action    @xmath11\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath3 is an unspecified function of curvature invariants .
the term @xmath12 is the minimally coupled ordinary matter contribution . in the metric approach ,
the field equations are obtained by varying ( [ fogaction ] ) with respect to @xmath13 .
we get    @xmath14_{;\nu)\alpha}\\\\\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\ , \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,+\box[f_yr_{\mu\nu}]+[f_yr_{\alpha\beta}]^{;\alpha\beta}g_{\mu\nu } + 2f_zr_{\mu\alpha \beta\gamma}{r_{\nu}}^{\alpha\beta\gamma}-4[f_z{{r_\mu}^{\alpha\beta}}_\nu]_{;\alpha\beta}\,=\ , \mathcal{x}\,t_{\mu\nu } \\\\
f_xr+2f_yr_{\alpha\beta}r^{\alpha\beta}+2f_zr_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta } r^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}-2f+\box[3 f_x+f_yr]+2[(f_y+2f_z)r^{\alpha\beta}]_{;\alpha\beta}\,=\,\mathcal{x}\,t \end{array}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath15 , @xmath16 , @xmath17 , @xmath18 and @xmath19 .
@xmath20 is the energy - momentum tensor of matter and @xmath21 is its trace .
the second line of ( [ fieldequationfog ] ) is the trace of the first one .    in the case of weak field and
slow motion we consider the field equation in the so called newtonian limit of theory . for our aim
we can consider the metric tensor approximated as follows ( for details , see @xcite )    @xmath22    where @xmath23 is the gravitational potentials and @xmath24 is the kronecker delta .
the set of coordinates adopted is @xmath25 . by introducing the quantities    @xmath26
we get three differential equations for the curvature invariant @xmath27 and the gravitational potentials @xmath23 , @xmath28    @xmath29 x\,=\,-{m_2}^2\mathcal{x}\,\rho\\\\ ( \triangle-{m_1}^2)x\,=\,{m_1}^2\mathcal{x}\,\rho \end{array}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath30 is the laplacian in the flat space and @xmath31 is the matter density @xcite .
further we assumes @xmath32 without loss of generality .    by choosing @xmath33 and introducing @xmath34 the gravitational potential in the case of point - like source ( @xmath35 )
is given by    @xmath36\end{aligned}\ ] ]    while in the case of generic matter source distribution we perform the change @xmath37 .
the passage from the pointlike source to extended one is correct only in the newtonian limit since a such limit corresponds also to the linearized version of theory .
the motion of bodies is given by geodesic equation    @xmath38    where @xmath39 is the relativistic distance and @xmath40 are the christoffel symbols . in the newtonian limit
we obtain    @xmath41    where the study of motion is very simple in particular cases of symmetry .
for example the case of stationary motion on the circular orbit we get    @xmath42    the distribution of mass can be modeled simply by introducing two sets of coordinates : the spherical coordinates @xmath43 and the cylindrical coordinates @xmath44 .
an useful mathematical tool is the gauss flux theorem for gravity . since the newtonian mechanics satisfies this theorem and , by thinking to a spherical system of mass distribution , we get , from ( [ stationary_motion_2 ] ) , the equation    @xmath45    where @xmath46 is the only mass enclosed in the sphere with radius @xmath47 . the green function of the @xmath5-gravity ( @xmath48 ) , instead , does not satisfy the theorem @xcite . in this case
we must consider directly the gravitational potential    @xmath49 \end{array}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    apart the mathematical difficulties incoming from the research of gravitational potential for a given mass distribution , the non - validity of gauss theorem implies , for example , that a sphere can not be reduced to a point . in fact the gravitational potential generated by a ball ( also with constant density ) is depending also on the fourier transform of ball @xcite . only in the limit case where the radius of ball is small with respect to the distance
we obtain the simple expression ( [ sol_pointlike ] ) .
we remember that in the potential ( [ sol_gen ] ) we can distinguish the contributions of the bulge , the disk and the ( eventual ) dark matter .
@xmath47 is the radial coordinate in the spherical system , while @xmath4 , @xmath50 are respectively the radial coordinate in the plane of disc and the distance from the plane then we have the geometric relation @xmath51 .
the main item is the choice of models of matter distribution .
the more simple model characterizing the shape of galaxy is the following    @xmath52    where @xmath53 is the gamma function , @xmath54 is a free parameter and @xmath55 is the ratio of dark matter inside the sphere with radius @xmath56 with respect the total dark matter @xmath57 .
moreover the couples @xmath58 , @xmath59 and @xmath60 , @xmath61 are the radius and the mass of the bulge and the disc .
the computational analysis here described is referred to the study of the rotation curve ( [ stationary_motion_2 ] ) which can be replaced as follows @xmath62 where @xmath63 is the gravitational potential    @xmath64 \nonumber\\\nonumber\\ & & + \frac{4\pi g}{3}\,\biggl[\frac{1}{r}\int_0^{\xi } dr'\,\rho_{dm}(r')\,r'\,\biggl(3\,\frac{|r - r'|-r - r'}{2 } -\frac{e^{-\mu_1|r - r'|}-e^{-\mu_1(r+r')}}{2\,\mu_1 } + 2\,\frac{e^{-\mu_2|r - r'|}-e^{-\mu_2(r+r ' ) } } { \mu_2}\biggr)\biggr ] \nonumber\\\nonumber\\ & & -2\,g\,\biggr\{\int_0^\infty dr'\,\sigma_{disc}(r')\,r'\,\biggl(\frac{\mathfrak{k}(\frac{4rr'}{(r+r')^2+z^2})}{\sqrt{(r+r')^2+z^2 } } + \frac{\mathfrak{k}(\frac{-4rr'}{(r - r')^2+z^2})}{\sqrt{(r - r')^2+z^2}}\biggr)+\int_0^\infty dr'\,\sigma_{disc}(r')\,r'\ , \\\nonumber\\ & & \times\int_0^{\pi } d\theta'\frac{1}{3\,\sqrt{(r+r')^2+z^2 - 4rr'\cos^2\theta ' } } \biggl[e^{-\mu_1\sqrt{(r+r')^2+z^2 - 4rr'\cos^2\theta ' } } -4\,e^{-\mu_2\sqrt{(r+r')^2+z^2 - 4rr'\cos^2\theta'}}\biggr]\biggr\}\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ]    and @xmath65 is the elliptic function
. the parameters @xmath66 and @xmath67 are the free parameters in the theory and only by fitting process can be fixed .
a sensible item is the choice of distance @xmath68 on the which we are observing the rotation curve .
in fact all models for the dark matter component are not limited and we need to cut the upper value of integration in ( [ potential ] ) .    a further distinction are the contributions to the potential coming from terms of general relativity ( gr ) origin and terms of forth order gravity ( fog ) origin .
finally our aim is the numerical evaluation of the rotation curve in the galactic plane    @xmath69    the first step , after the definition of the numerical values for the parameters , has been the building of the velocity starting from the derivative of the potential . for this , we need to build the definitions of the contributions to the density coming from the bulge , the disk and the dark matter ( respectively ` \rhob[r _ ] ` , ` \sigmad[r_],\rhodm[r _ ] ` in the full code present in appendix ) , together with the already mentioned splitting in the gr contributions and fog contributions ( respectively ` tergr[x_,y _ ] ` and ` teryu[x_,y _ ] ` in the code )
.    the derivative and integration operations commute , then we `` transport '' the derivative in the the integrand and then we make the integration .
we found this computationally more rapid .
we turning off the warning messages concerning the numerical integrations with the following commands :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ` off[nintegrate::inmur ] ` ` off[nintegrate::slowcon ] ` ` off[nintegrate::ncvb ] ` ` off[nintegrate::eincr ] ` _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    the first ` off ` is justified since all the variables definitions are made with the `` setdelayed '' command ( : = ) that postpones the numerical evaluation of the integral making it not immediately numerical . the second turn off the message of slow convergence of the integration and making so , we avoid a long series of warning messages .
the third avoid to the program to inform us of the need to use a larger number of recursive refinements in the computation . in effect
, we increase the refinements with the command ` maxrecursion ` @xmath70 ` 20 ` for all the integrals , but this is not sufficient by itself to turn off the warnings . to do this ,
we need a bigger number than 20 , but the computation became excessively slow and the final result remains practically unchanged . since the computation is faced with oscillating error estimation , that explains the origin of the last warning message .
we need to add to the numerical integration , the command ` method - > globaladaptive ` .
still here , the warning message has to be manually closed since an improvement of ` method ` slows down the computation without an effective change in the results .
an interesting thing to note , as it is possible to see in the complete code in appendix a and there noted with the comment ( * * ) , is that in the definition of the derivative by means of mute variables , it need not a `` setdelayed '' command , but a simple `` = '' command , otherwise the code is unable to make the computation .
the next and more interesting step , is the comparison of the experimental data and what predicted by our model . from the literature cited in @xcite
we can obtain the galactic speed values as function of the distance from the center and the corresponding errors .
for instance , we show in some detail the manipulation of the data coming from the analysis of @xcite , concerning the external part of the milky way .
we start copying the data listed in the table 1 of @xcite in a table called ` list1 ` .
then we follow the prescriptions given by the authors with the introduction of new variables . as it is possible to see in the code present in appendix b ,
we preserve the same notations and with the command ` append ` we add to the initial ` list1 ` the new variables .
for instance , for the @xmath4 variable , with the command ` mapthread[append,{list1,r } ] ` , we obtain a new table , here ` list2 ` , with one more column , the @xmath4 s valuer . and so on with the other variables .
we introduce with the usual definitions , the errors on these derived quantities , here written as @xmath71 and added to the table .
then @xmath72r and @xmath73 are , respectively , the error bars on the radius ( the distance from the galactic center ) and on the corresponding speeds and we process them together with the data in order to form the list with the values measured ( or derived ) and the errors on @xmath74 and @xmath75 . in order to obtai a plot with the error bars ,
we need to load the right package for this with the command ` need["errorbarplot"\ ` ] ` and this make us able to to make an ` errorlistplot ` . with the plot of ` list10 ` , we obtain a plot with the error bars only on y. a little bit more complicate procedure is need in order to obtain the bars on @xmath74 too .
indeed we need to build a list of values like ` { { x , y},errorbar{err x , err y } } ` and this is done with the procedure shown in the last rows of appendix b. in figure [ stark ] it is shown the result .
+    similar procedures for the others two part of the milky way data and for the ngc 3190 data . at the end ,
the three experimental data for the milky way , each corresponding to a given range of distance from the center of the galaxy , are put together in order to obtain the complete galactic rotation curve .    at this point
we proceeded following two strategies .
the first one , the faster , has been to overlap the theoretical graphs with the experimental one using the command ` show ` . in this case , the values of parameters in the densities ( bulge , dark matter and disk ) and of reduced masses , @xmath66 and @xmath67 , are chosen by a direct overlap of the graphs .
the second strategy , more rigorous and slower , is the fit procedure . in appendix c
is present the part of code of interest . in this case ,
in the code of the galactic rotation curve , we fix all other parameters except the `` masses '' @xmath66 and @xmath67 .
these variables are the values that must be found whit the find fit procedure .
we note that the ` findfit ` procedure uses the parameter constraints option . in this way
, it is possible to eliminate all the solutions not physically allowed and to find the values obtained by the direct investigation , that is the first strategy , @xmath76 , @xmath77 where @xmath78 is the characteristic scale length fixed to the value of 1 kpc .
obviously , an increase of the number of parameters to be found with this procedure , increase he time of the computation .
in this paper we present a study of the galactic rotation curve when a fog is considered .
the purely theoretical aspects have been fully exposed in @xcite . in the present work , after an obvious theoretical introduction , useful to remember the hypothesis used , we focus our attention on the salient points of the code that us permitted the computational analysis . with this program ,
we test the validity of our model of galactic rotation curve and the agreement of the experimental data of two galaxies , the milky way and the galaxy ngc 3190 , with our model .    in order to make the explanation as complete as possible and to contextualize the several pieces of code examined , we show , in appendix a , the full code corresponding to the plot of the figure [ plot_1_prd ] , that is the code for a galaxy whose components are the bulge , the disk and the dark matter .
the code referring also to the study of the galaxy ngc 3190 is exactly the same with the exclusion of the part of code referring to the bulge .
as it is possible to see from figure [ plot_2_prd ] , the agreement of our model with the experimental data of the milky way is very good . only for very low values of the distance
@xmath4 the agreement is not perfect .
this suggest us that we only need an improvement of the parameters in the code , maintaining the code itself essentially unchanged .
the complete code that refers to the data analysis is omitted since , apart the obvious introduction of the data coming from the cited literature , the complete program is a mere reply of what presented in appendix b. +    dm ( dashed and dotted line ) , fog ( solid line ) , fog@xmath79 dm ( dotted line ) .
the values of masses are @xmath80 and @xmath81 @xcite , title="fig : " ] +    dm ( dashed and dotted line ) , fog ( solid line ) , fog@xmath79 dm ( dotted line ) on the experimental data for milky way .
the values of masses are @xmath80 and @xmath81 @xcite.,title="fig : " ] +
@xmath82;\text{msun}=1.98\times 10^{30};}\\ \pmb{\text{$\mu $ 1}=10^{-2};\text{$\mu $ 2}=10 ^ 2;\text{mb}=1.8\text{(*}\text{\textit{bulge } \text{mass}}\text{*)};\text{md}=6.5\text{(*}\text{\textit{disk } \text{mass}}\text{*)};\text{mdm}=4.2}\\ \pmb{\text{(*}\text{\textit{dark } \text{matter } \text{mass}}\text{*)};\text{$\xi $ b}=0.5\text{(*}\text{\textit{bulge } \text{radius}}\text{*)};\text{$\xi $ d}=3.5\text{(*}\text{\textit{galaxy } \text{radius}}\text{*)};}\\ \pmb{\text{$\xi $ dm}=5.5\text{(*}\text{d.m .
radius}\text{*)};\chi = 20;\xi = \chi ; \text{stepr}=0.5;z=5\times 10^{-5};}\\ \pmb{\text{ab}\text{:=}\text{$\#$1 } ( \text{heavisidetheta}[\text{$\#$1}]-\text{heavisidetheta}[-\text{$\#$1}])\ & } \\
\pmb{k=10^{-3}\sqrt{\frac{\text{gr}\times 10^{10}\times \text{msun}\times \text{mb}}{10 ^ 3\times 3.08\times 10^{16}\times \text{$\xi $ b}}};}\\ \pmb{\text{$\rho $ b}[\text{r$\_$}]\text{:=}e^{-\left(\frac{r}{\text{$\xi $ b}}\right)^2 } \text{(*}\text{bulge density}\text{*)}}\\ \pmb{\text{$\rho $ dm}[\text{r$\_$}]\text{:=}\frac{1}{1+\left(\frac{r}{\text{$\xi $ dm}}\right)^2 } \text{(*}\text{dark matter density}\text{*)}}\\ \pmb{\text{$\sigma $ d}[\text{y$\_$}]\text{:=}e^{-\frac{y}{\text{$\xi $ d } } } \text{(*}\text{disk density}\text{*)}}\\ \pmb{\text{tergr}[\text{x$\_$},\text{y$\_$}]\text{:=}3\frac{\text{ab}[x - y]-x - y}{2}}\\ \pmb{\text{teryu}[\text{x$\_$},\text{y$\_$}]\text{:=}-\frac{e^{- \text{$\mu $ 1 } \text{ab}[x - y]}-e^{- \text{$\mu $ 1 } ( x+y)}}{2 \text{$\mu $ 1}}+2\frac{e^{- \text{$\mu $ 2 } \text{ab}[x - y]}-e^{-\text{$\mu $ 2 } ( x+y)}}{\text{$\mu $ 2}}}\\ \pmb{\text{f1}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$}]\text{:=}\frac{\text{elliptick}\left[\frac{4r \text{rp}}{(r+\text{rp})^2+z^2}\right]}{\sqrt{(r+\text{rp})^2+z^2}}+\frac{\text{elliptick}\left[-\frac{4r \text{rp}}{(r-\text{rp})^2+z^2}\right]}{\sqrt{(r-\text{rp})^2+z^2}}}\\ \pmb{\text{f2}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$},\text{$\theta $ p$\_$}]\text{:=}\frac{e^{-\text{$\mu $ 1 }
\sqrt{(r+\text{rp})^2 - 4 r \text{rp}\text {   } \text{cos}[\text{$\theta $ p}]^2+z^2}}-4e^{-\text{$\mu $ 2 } \sqrt{(r+\text{rp})^2 - 4 r \text{rp}\text {   } \text{cos}[\text{$\theta $ p}]^2+z^2}}}{3\sqrt{(r+\text{rp})^2 - 4 r \text{rp}\text {   } \text{cos}[\text{$\theta $ p}]^2+z^2}}}\\ \pmb{\text{integrandb1}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$},\gamma \_]\text{:=}\frac{2}{3\text{$\xi $ b}^{2-\gamma } \text{gamma}\left[\frac{3-\gamma } { 2}\right]}\frac{1}{r } \text{$\rho $ b}[\text{rp}]\text{rp}^{1-\gamma } ( \text{tergr}[r,\text{rp}]+\text{teryu}[r,\text{rp}])}\\ \pmb{\text{derintegrandb1}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$},\gamma \_]=d[\text{integrandb1}[r,\text{rp},\gamma ] , r ] ; \text{(*}\text{$\leftarrow $ } \text{*)}}\\ \pmb{\text{$\phi $ b1}[\text{r$\_$},\gamma \_]\text{:=}}\\ \pmb{\text{nintegrate}[\text{derintegrandb1}[r,\text{rp},\gamma ] , \{\text{rp},0,100\text{$\xi $ b}\},\text{maxrecursion}\to 20,}\\ \pmb{\text{method}\to
\text{{``}globaladaptive{''}}]\text{/.}r\to \sqrt{r^2+z^2}}\\ \pmb{\text{integranddm1}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$},\alpha \_]\text{:=}\frac{4 \alpha   \text{mdm}/\text{mb}}{3(4-\pi ) \left.\text{$\xi $ dm}^3\right/\text{$\xi $ b}}\frac{1}{r } \text{$\rho $ dm}[\text{rp}]\text{rp}(\text{tergr}[r,\text{rp}]+\text{teryu}[r,\text{rp}])}\\ \pmb{\text{derintegranddm1}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$},\alpha \_]=d[\text{integranddm1}[r,\text{rp},\alpha ] , r];\text{(*}\text{$\leftarrow $ } \text{*)}}\\ \pmb{\text{$\phi $ dm1}[\text{r$\_$},\alpha \_]\text{:=}}\\ \pmb{\text{nintegrate}[\text{derintegranddm1}[r,\text{rp},\alpha ] , \{\text{rp},0,\xi \},\text{maxrecursion}\to 20,}\\ \pmb{\text{method}\to \text{{``}globaladaptive{''}}]\text{/.}r\to \sqrt{r^2+z^2}}\\ \pmb{\text{integrandd11}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$}]\text{:=}-\frac{(\text{md}/\text{mb})}{\pi \frac{\text{$\xi $ d}^2}{\text{$\xi $ b}}}\times ( \text{rp } \text{$\sigma $ d}[\text{rp } ] \text{f1}[r,\text{rp } ] ) } \\ \pmb{\text{integrandd12}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$},\text{$\theta $ p$\_$}]\text{:=}-\frac{(\text{md}/\text{mb})}{\pi \frac{\text{$\xi $ d}^2}{\text{$\xi $ b}}}\times ( \text{rp } \text{$\sigma $ d}[\text{rp } ] \text{f2}[r,\text{rp},\text{$\theta $ p } ] ) } \\
\pmb{\text{derintegrandd11}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$}]=d[\text{integrandd11}[r,\text{rp}],r];}\\ \pmb{\text{derintegrandd12}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$},\text{$\theta $ p$\_$}]=d[\text{integrandd12}[r,\text{rp},\text{$\theta $ p}],r];\text{(*}\text{$\leftarrow $ } \text{*)}}\\ \pmb{\text{$\phi $ d1}[\text{r$\_$}]\text{:=}}\\ \pmb{(\text{nintegrate}[\text{derintegrandd11}[r,\text{rp}],\{\text{rp},0,50\text{$\xi $ d}\},\text{maxrecursion}\to 20,}\\ \pmb{\text{method}\to \text{{``}globaladaptive{''}}]+}\\ \pmb{\text{nintegrate}[\text{derintegrandd12}[r,\text{rp},\text{$\theta $ p}],\{\text{rp},0,50\text{$\xi $ d}\},\{\text{$\theta $ p},0,\pi \},\text{maxrecursion}\to 20,}\\ \pmb{\text{method}\to \text{{``}globaladaptive{''}}])}\\ \pmb{\text{integrandb2}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$},\gamma \_]\text{:=}\frac{2}{3\text{$\xi $ b}^{2-\gamma } \text{gamma}\left[\frac{3-\gamma } { 2}\right]}\frac{1}{r } \text{$\rho $ b}[\text{rp}]\text{rp}^{1-\gamma } \text{tergr}[r,\text{rp}]}\\ \pmb{\text{derintegrandb2}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$},\gamma \_]=d[\text{integrandb2}[r,\text{rp},\gamma ] , r];\text{(*}\text{$\leftarrow $ } \text{*)}}\\ \pmb{\text{$\psi $ b2}[\text{r$\_$},\gamma \_]\text{:=}}\\ \pmb{\text{nintegrate}[\text{derintegrandb2}[r,\text{rp},\gamma ] , \{\text{rp},0,100\text{$\xi $ b}\},\text{maxrecursion}\to 20,}\\ \pmb{\text{method}\to
\text{{``}globaladaptive{''}}]\text{/.}r\to \sqrt{r^2+z^2}}\\ \pmb{\text{integranddm2}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$},\alpha \_]\text{:=}\frac{4 \alpha   \text{mdm}/\text{mb}}{3(4-\pi ) \left.\text{$\xi $ dm}^3\right/\text{$\xi $ b}}\frac{1}{r } \text{$\rho $ dm}[\text{rp}]\text{rp } \text{tergr}[r,\text{rp}]}\\ \pmb{\text{derintegranddm2}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$},\alpha \_]=d[\text{integranddm2}[r,\text{rp},\alpha ] , r];\text{(*}\text{$\leftarrow $ } \text{*)}}\\ \pmb{\text{$\psi $ dm2}[\text{r$\_$},\alpha \_]\text{:=}}\\ \pmb{\text{nintegrate}[\text{derintegranddm2}[r,\text{rp},\alpha ] , \{\text{rp},0,\xi \},\text{maxrecursion}\to 20,}\\ \pmb{\text{method}\to \text{{``}globaladaptive{''}}]\text{/.}r\to \sqrt{r^2+z^2}}\\ \pmb{\text{derintegrandd2}[\text{r$\_$},\text{rp$\_$}]=d[\text{integrandd11}[r,\text{rp}],r];\text{(*}\text{$\leftarrow $ } \text{*)}}\\ \pmb{\text{$\psi $ d2}[\text{r$\_$}]\text{:=}\text{nintegrate}[\text{derintegrandd2}[r,\text{rp}],\{\text{rp},0,50\text{$\xi $ d}\},\text{maxrecursion}\to 20,}\\ \pmb{\text{method}\to \text{{``}globaladaptive{''}}]}\\ \pmb{\phi
[ \text{r$\_$},\gamma \_]\text{:=}\text{$\phi $ b1}[r,\gamma ] + \text{$\phi $ d1}[r]}\\ \pmb{\psi [ \text{r$\_$},\gamma \_]\text{:=}\text{$\psi $ b2}[r,\gamma ] + \text{$\psi $ d2}[r]}\\ \pmb{\text{$\phi $ 1}[\text{r$\_$},\gamma \_,\alpha \_]\text{:=}\phi [ r,\gamma ] + \text{$\phi $ dm1}[r,\alpha ] } \\ \pmb{\text{$\psi $ 1}[\text{r$\_$},\gamma \_,\alpha \_]\text{:=}\psi [ r,\gamma ] + \text{$\psi $ dm2}[r,\alpha ] } \\
\pmb{\text{velfog}[\text{r$\_$},\gamma \_]\text{:=}k(r \phi [ r,\gamma ] ) ^{\frac{1}{2}}}\\ \pmb{\text{velgr}[\text{r$\_$},\gamma \_]\text{:=}k(r \psi [ r,\gamma ] ) ^{\frac{1}{2}}}\\ \pmb{\text{velfogdm}[\text{r$\_$},\gamma \_,\alpha \_]\text{:=}k(r \text{$\phi $ 1}[r,\gamma , \alpha ] ) ^{\frac{1}{2}}}\\ \pmb{\text{velgrdm}[\text{r$\_$},\gamma \_,\alpha \_]\text{:=}k(r \text{$\psi $ 1}[r,\gamma , \alpha ] ) ^{\frac{1}{2}}}\\ \pmb{\text{datavelfog}[\gamma \_]\text{:=}\text{table}\left[\text{velfog}[r,\gamma ] , \left\{r,10^{-7},\chi , \text{stepr}\right\}\right];}\\ \pmb{\text{datavelgr}[\gamma \_]\text{:=}\text{table}\left[\text{velgr}[r,\gamma ] , \left\{r,10^{-7},\chi , \text{stepr}\right\}\right];}\\ \pmb{\text{datavelfogdm}[\gamma \_,\alpha \_]\text{:=}\text{table}\left[\text{velfogdm}[r,\gamma , \alpha ] , \left\{r,10^{-7},\chi , \text{stepr}\right\}\right];}\\ \pmb{\text{datavelgrdm}[\gamma \_,\alpha \_]\text{:=}\text{table}\left[\text{velgrdm}[r,\gamma , \alpha ] , \left\{r,10^{-7},\chi , \text{stepr}\right\}\right];}\\ \pmb{\text{fig1}[\gamma \_]\text{:=}\text{listplot}[\text{datavelgr}[\gamma ] , \text{plotrange}\to \text{all},}\\ \pmb{\text{framelabel}\to \left\{\text{style}[\text{{``}r(kpc){''}},\text{large},\text{black}],\text{style}\left[\texttt{"}v_c\text{(r)(km / s)$\texttt{"}$},\text{large},\text{italic},\text{black}\right]\right\},}\\ \pmb{\text{datarange}\to \{0,\chi \},\text{plotstyle}\to \text{directive}[\text{black},\text{dashed},\text{thick}],\text{joined}\to \text{true } , } \\ \pmb{\text{axesorigin}\to \{0,0\},\text{frame}\to \text{true}]}\\ \pmb{\text{fig2}[\gamma \_]\text{:=}\text{listplot}[\text{datavelfog}[\gamma ] , \text{plotrange}\to \text{all},}\\ \pmb{\text{framelabel}\to \left\{\text{style}[\text{{``}r(kpc){''}},\text{large},\text{black}],\text{style}\left[\texttt{"}v_c\text{(r)(km / s)$\texttt{"}$},\text{large},\text{italic},\text{black}\right]\right\},}\\ \pmb{\text{datarange}\to \{0,\chi \},\text{plotstyle}\to \text{directive}[\text{black},\text{thick}],\text{joined}\to \text{true } , } \\ \pmb{\text{axesorigin}\to \{0,0\},\text{frame}\to \text{true}]}\\ \pmb{\text{fig3}[\gamma \_,\alpha \_]\text{:=}\text{listplot}[\text{datavelgrdm}[\gamma , \alpha ] , \text{plotrange}\to \text{all},}\\ \pmb{\text{framelabel}\to \left\{\text{style}[\text{{``}r(kpc){''}},\text{large},\text{black}],\text{style}\left[\texttt{"}v_c\text{(r)(km / s)$\texttt{"}$},\text{large},\text{italic},\text{black}\right]\right\},}\\ \pmb{\text{datarange}\to \{0,\chi \},\text{plotstyle}\to \text{directive}[\text{black},\text{dotdashed},\text{thick}],\text{joined}\to \text{true } , } \\ \pmb{\text{axesorigin}\to \{0,0\},\text{frame}\to \text{true}]}\\ \pmb{\text{fig4}[\gamma \_,\alpha \_]\text{:=}\text{listplot}[\text{datavelfogdm}[\gamma , \alpha ] , \text{plotrange}\to \text{all},}\\ \pmb{\text{framelabel}\to \left\{\text{style}[\text{{``}r(kpc){''}},\text{large},\text{black}],\text{style}\left[\texttt{"}v_c\text{(r)(km / s)$\texttt{"}$},\text{large},\text{italic},\text{black}\right]\right\},}\\ \pmb{\text{datarange}\to
\{0,\chi \},\text{plotstyle}\to \text{directive}[\text{black},\text{dotted},\text{thick}],\text{joined}\to \text{true } , } \\ \pmb{\text{axesorigin}\to \{0,0\},\text{frame}\to \text{true}]}\\ \pmb{\alpha = 0.5;\gamma = 1.5;}\\ \pmb{\text{th}=\text{show}[\text{fig1}[\gamma ] , \text{fig2}[\gamma ] , \text{fig3}[\gamma , \alpha ] , \text{fig4}[\gamma , \alpha ] ] } $ ]
@xmath83 ^ 2 - 2\text{r0 } \text{list1}[[\text{all},3]]\text{cos}[\text{list1}[[\text{all},1]]{}^{\circ}]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}};}\\ \pmb{\text{list2}=\text{mapthread}[\text{append},\{\text{list1},r\}];}\\ \pmb{\omega = \frac{\text{list2}[[\text{all},5]]}{\text{r0 } \text{sin}[\text{list2}[[\text{all},1]]{}^{\circ}]\text{cos}[\text{list2}[[\text{all},2]]{}^{\circ}]}+\text{$\omega $ 0}-}\\ \pmb{\frac{4.2 \text{cos}[\text{list2}[[\text{all},1]]{}^{\circ}]}{\text{r0 } \text{sin}[\text{list2}[[\text{all},1]]{}^{\circ}]};}\\ \pmb{\text{list3}=\text{mapthread}[\text{append},\{\text{list2},\omega \}];}\\
\pmb{\sigma \omega = \text{abs}\left[(\omega -\text{$\omega $ 0})\sqrt{\left(\frac{\text{list3}[[\text{all},6]]}{\text{list3}[[\text{all},5]]}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\text{$\sigma $ l}}{\text{tan}[\text{list3}[[\text{all},1]]{}^{\circ}]}\right)^2}\right];}\\ \pmb{\text{list4}=\text{mapthread}[\text{append},\{\text{list3},\sigma \omega \}];}\\ \pmb{\theta = r\times \omega ; } \\ \pmb{\text{list5}=\text{mapthread}[\text{append},\{\text{list4},\theta \}];}\\
\pmb{\text{$\sigma $ r}=}\\ \pmb{\text{abs}[}\\ \pmb{\frac{1}{r}\surd \left((\text{list4}[[\text{all},3]]-\text{r0 } \text{cos}[\text{list4}[[\text{all},1]]{}^{\circ}])^2\text{list4}[[\text{all},4]]^2+\right.}\\ \pmb{\left.\left.(\text{r0 } \text{list4}[[\text{all},3]]\text{sin}[\text{list4}[[\text{all},1]]{}^{\circ}])^2\text{$\sigma $ l}^2\right)\right];}\\ \pmb{\text{list6}=\text{mapthread}[\text{append},\{\text{list5},\text{$\sigma $ r}\}];}\\ \pmb{\text{list7}=\text{drop}[\text{list6},\{\},\{1,6\}];}\\ \pmb{\sigma \theta = \text{abs}\left[\theta \sqrt{\left(\frac{\sigma \omega } { \omega } \right)^2+\left(\frac{\text{$\sigma $ r}}{r}\right)^2}\right];}\\ \pmb{\text{list8}=\text{mapthread}[\text{append},\{\text{list7},\sigma \theta \}];}\\ \pmb{\text{list9}=\text{drop}[\text{list8},\{\},\{2,3\}]\text{(*errors on x and y*)};}\\ \pmb{\text{list10}=\text{drop}[\text{list9},\{\},\{3\}]\text{(*errors on y*)};}\\ \pmb{\text{needs}[\text{{``}errorbarplots$\grave { } $ { ' ' } } ] } \\ \pmb{\text{errorlistplot}[\text{list10},}\\ \pmb{\text{axeslabel}\to \{\text{style}[\text{{``}r(kpc){''}},\text{large},\text{black}],}\\ \pmb{\left.\text{style}\left[\texttt{"}v_c\text{(r)(km / s)$\texttt{"}$},\text{large},\text{italic},\text{black}\right]\right\},\text{plotstyle}\to \text{black},}\\ \pmb{\text{plotmarkers}\to \{\text{{``}$\blacksquare${''}}\ } , \text{plotrange}\to \text{all},\text{axesorigin}\to \{0,0\}]}$ ] +   +   + @xmath84}\\ \pmb{\text{errx}=\text{drop}[\text{drop}[\text{list9},\{\},\{1,2\}],\{\},\{2\}][[\text{all},1]]}\\ \pmb{\text{erry}=\text{drop}[\text{drop}[\text{list9},\{\},\{1,2\}],\{\},\{1\}][[\text{all},1]]}\\ \pmb{\text{listerr}=\{\text{errx},\text{erry}\}^{\mathsf{t}}}\\ \pmb{\text{error}=\text{cases}[\text{listerr},\{\text{x$\_$},\text{y$\_$}\}:\to \text{errorbar}[x , y]]}\\ \pmb{\text{valerr}=\text{map}[\{\#[[1]],\#[[2]]\}\&,\{\text{data},\text{error}\}^{\mathsf{t}}]}\\ \pmb{\text{errorlistplot}[\text{valerr},}\\ \pmb{\text{framelabel}\to
\{\text{style}[\text{{``}r(kpc){''}},\text{large},\text{black}],}\\ \pmb{\left.\text{style}\left[\texttt{"}v_c\text{(r)(km / s)$\texttt{"}$},\text{large},\text{italic},\text{black}\right]\right\},\text{plotstyle}\to \text{black},}\\ \pmb{\text{plotmarkers}\to \{\text{{``}$\blacksquare${''}}\ } , \text{plotrange}\to \text{all},\text{axesorigin}\to \{0,0\},\text{frame}\to \text{true}]}$ ] +
@xmath85\text{:=}(\text{$\phi $ b1}[r,\text{$\mu $ 1},\text{$\mu $ 2}]+\text{$\phi $ d1}[r,\text{$\mu $ 1},\text{$\mu $ 2}]+\text{$\phi $ dm1}[r,\text{$\mu $ 1},\text{$\mu $ 2}])}\\ \pmb{\text{velfogdm}[\text{r$\_$},\text{$\mu $ 1$\_$},\text{$\mu $ 2$\_$}]\text{:=}k(r \text{$\phi $ 1}[r,\gamma , \text{$\mu $ 1},\text{$\mu $ 2 } ] ) ^{\frac{1}{2}}}\\ \pmb{\text{model}= \text{velfogdm}[r,\text{$\mu $ 1},\text{$\mu $ 2}];}\\ \pmb{\text{findfit}\left[\text{val},\text{model},\left\{\left\{\text{$\mu $ 1},10^{-2}\right\},\left\{\text{$\mu $ 2},10 ^ 2\right\}\right\},r\right]}$ ]