the origin of mass is a central mystery of the standard model ( sm ) . in particular , why are the masses of w , z , and the top quark exceptionally large compared with those of other particles in the sm ?
the idea of the top quark condensate  @xcite explains naturally the large top mass of the order of the electroweak symmetry breaking ( ewsb ) scale . in the explicit formulation of this idea  @xcite , often called the `` top mode standard model '' ( tmsm ) , the scalar bound state of @xmath9 plays the role of the higgs boson in the sm .
( for reviews , see , e.g. , refs .
@xcite . )
there are several problems in the original version of the tmsm : we need to introduce ad hoc four - fermion interactions of the top quark in order to trigger the ewsb .
the top mass @xmath10 , given as a decreasing function of the composite scale @xmath11 , is predicted about 10%30% larger than the experimental value , even if we take @xmath11 to the planck or the gut scale  @xcite .
such a huge @xmath11 also causes a serious fine - tuning problem .    as a possible solution to these problems , following the line of an earlier attempt  @xcite of the tmsm in the tev - scale extra dimension scenario  @xcite , arkani - hamed , cheng , dobrescu and hall ( acdh )
@xcite proposed an interesting version of such where the sm gauge bosons and the third generation of quarks and leptons live in the @xmath12-dimensional bulk , while the first and second generations are confined in the 3-brane ( 4-dimensional minkowski space - time ) .
gauge interactions in higher dimensions than four become strong in a certain high - energy region .
bulk gauge interactions are expected to trigger the top condensation without adding ad hoc four - fermion interactions , in contrast to the original version of the tmsm .
however , the dynamics of bulk gauge theories was not concretely analyzed in ref .
in particular , as it turned out  @xcite ( see also refs .
@xcite ) , the bulk qcd coupling , which is the most relevant interaction for the top condensation , has an ultraviolet fixed point ( uv - fp ) or upper bound within the same @xmath13-scheme of the truncated kaluza - klein ( kk ) effective theory  @xcite as that ref .
@xcite was based on .
thus , it is quite nontrivial whether the top condensation is actually realized or not . in refs .
@xcite , we have studied the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking ( d@xmath14sb ) in bulk gauge theories , based on the ladder schwinger - dyson ( sd ) equation.sb  in other scenario for extra dimensions was investigated in ref .
switching off the electroweak interaction in the bulk , we then found that the bulk qcd coupling can not become sufficiently large to trigger the top condensation for @xmath2 , while the top condensation can be realized for @xmath1 .
for the purpose of model building , we further need to study the effect of the bulk electroweak interactions : since the bulk @xmath15 interaction grows very quickly due to the power - like running behavior and reaches immediately its landau pole @xmath16 , it may affect the most favored channel for condensate , i.e. , the most attractive channel ( mac )  @xcite . we also need to study whether or not the prediction of the top mass agrees with the experiments .    in this paper , we demonstrate a possibility that the top condensate is actually the mac even including all of the bulk sm gauge interactions .
this is quite nontrivial , because inclusion of the strong bulk @xmath15 interaction may favor the tau condensation rather than the top condensation .
in order for only the top quark to acquire the dynamical mass of the order of the ewsb scale , the binding strength should exceed the critical binding strength @xmath17 only for the top quark ( `` topped mac '' or `` tmac '' ) .
namely , our scenario works only when @xmath18 where @xmath19 , @xmath20 and @xmath21 denote the binding strengths of the top , bottom , and tau condensates at the scale @xmath11 , respectively .
we refer to the scale @xmath11 satisfying eq .  ( [ top - cond ] ) as the tmac scale @xmath22 .    for the mac analysis , we study binding strengths @xmath23 by using the one - loop renormalization group equations ( rges ) of dimensionless bulk gauge couplings .
it is in contrast to the analysis of acdh  @xcite where all of bulk gauge couplings are assumed equal ( and strong enough for triggering the ewsb ) . in order to check reliability of our mac analysis
, we also study the regularization - scheme dependence of the binding strengths .
we calculate gauge couplings in two prescriptions , the @xmath13-scheme of the truncated kk effective theory and the proper - time ( pt ) scheme  @xcite .
there are some varieties in the estimation of @xmath17 : the naive dimensional analysis ( nda )  @xcite implies @xmath24 , while the ladder sd equation yields much smaller value @xmath25  @xcite .
as the estimate of @xmath17 increases in eq .
( [ top - cond ] ) , the region of the tmac scale gets squeezed .
even if we adopt the lowest possible value of @xmath17 given by the ladder sd equation  @xcite , we find that _ the tmac scale does not exist for the simplest scenario with @xmath2_. on the other hand , _ the tmac scale does exist in @xmath1 _ for the value of the ladder sd equation , @xmath26@xmath27 , where the compactification scale @xmath28 is taken to be 1100 tev .
for @xmath3 , the mac analysis significantly depends on the regularization scheme .
once we obtain the tmac scale @xmath22 , we can easily predict the top mass @xmath10 and the higgs mass @xmath29 by using the renormalization group equations ( rges ) for the top yukawa and higgs quartic couplings , and the compositeness conditions  @xcite at the scale @xmath30 .
this is in contrast to the earlier approach  @xcite ( see also ref .
@xcite ) where the composite scale @xmath11 is treated as an adjustable free parameter and fixed so as to reproduce the experimental value of @xmath10 .
without such an adjustable parameter , we predict the top quark mass @xmath31 for @xmath1 and @xmath32 1100 tev .
this agrees with the experimental value , @xmath33 gev  @xcite .
we find that the value of @xmath10 near the compactification scale @xmath28 is governed by the quasi infrared fixed point ( ir - fp ) for the top yukawa coupling @xmath34  @xcite , which is approximately obtained as @xmath35 with the 4-dimensional qcd coupling @xmath36 , the number of color @xmath37 , the quadratic casimir of the fundamental representation @xmath38 , and @xmath39 .
the suppression factor @xmath40 in @xmath34 arises from one - loop effects of the bulk top quark which is equivalent to a tower of kk modes ( massive vector - like fermions ) .
the mechanism suppressing the top mass prediction is thus similar to that of the top seesaw  @xcite .
we also predict the higgs boson mass as @xmath41 thanks to the ir - fp property , the prediction for @xmath10 and @xmath29 is stable .
the higgs boson with such a characteristic mass can be distinguished clearly from that of supersymmetric or other typical dynamical ewsb models simply through its mass determination in experiments .
it will also be discovered immediately after the physics run of lhc .
the paper is organized as follows . in sec .
ii , we study running effects of bulk gauge couplings in the @xmath13- , and pt - schemes . in sec .
iii , we identify the tmac scale . in sec .
iv , we predict @xmath10 and @xmath29 for @xmath1 . sec .
v is devoted to summary and discussions . in appendix
a , we present details of our procedure for the orbifold compactification .
we also count the total number of kk modes below the renormalization point .
appendix b is for details of bulk gauge couplings in the pt - scheme .
let us consider a simple version of the tmsm with extra dimensions where the sm gauge group and the third generation of quarks and leptons are put in @xmath42-dimensional bulk , while the first and second generations live on the 3-brane ( 4-dimensional minkowski space - time ) .
the @xmath42-dimensions consist of the usual 4-dimensional minkowski space - time and extra @xmath43 spatial dimensions compactified at a tev - scale @xmath28 .
the number of dimensions @xmath42 is taken to be even , @xmath44 , so as to introduce chiral fermions in the bulk . in order to obtain a 4-dimensional chiral theory and to forbid massless gauge scalars , we compactify extra dimensions on the orbifold @xmath45 ( see appendix a ) .
we emphasize that there is no elementary field for higgs in our model .
the chiral condensation of bulk fermions may generate dynamically a composite higgs field , instead .
hence we investigate rges of bulk gauge couplings including loop effects of the composite higgs .
we expand bulk fields into kk modes and construct a 4-dimensional effective theory . in this subsection
, we study running of gauge couplings in the `` truncated kk '' effective theory  @xcite based on the @xmath13-scheme . below the compactification scale @xmath28 , rges of 4-dimensional gauge couplings
@xmath46 are given by those of the sm , @xmath47 with @xmath48 and @xmath49 for one ( composite ) higgs doublet .
we need to take into account contributions of kk modes in @xmath50 .
since the kk modes heavier than the renormalization scale @xmath51 are decoupled in the @xmath13-rges , we only need summing up the loops of the kk modes lighter than @xmath51 . within the truncated kk effective theory , we obtain rges for gauge couplings @xmath46 : @xmath52 where rge coefficients @xmath53 are given by @xmath54 for @xmath55 , @xmath56 for @xmath57 , and @xmath58 for @xmath15 . here
@xmath59 is defined as @xmath60 in eqs .
( [ b3kk])([bykk ] ) , @xmath61 denote the total number of kk modes for gauge bosons , gauge scalars , dirac ( 4-component ) fermions , and composite higgs bosons below @xmath51 , respectively .
the number of generations in the bulk is @xmath62 , which is unity in our model . in the following analysis ,
we assume one composite higgs doublet , @xmath63 .
@xmath64 for @xmath65 are not necessarily equal , since the orbifold boundary conditions are depending on @xmath66 . for details , see appendix a. we show numerical values for @xmath67 , ( the solid lines ) , @xmath68 , ( the dashed lines ) , and @xmath69 , ( the dotted lines ) in figs .
[ fig - g-6d](b ) , [ fig - g-8d](b ) and [ fig - g-10d](b ) .
matching the 4-dimensional action to the bulk action , we find the relation between the 4-dimensional gauge coupling @xmath70 and the _ dimensionful _ bulk gauge coupling @xmath71 , @xmath72 .
we define the _ dimensionless _ bulk gauge coupling @xmath73 as @xmath74 and thereby obtain @xmath75 combining eq .
( [ hat - g ] ) with eq .
( [ rge_ed ] ) , we find rges for @xmath76 , @xmath77 .
\label{rge_ed2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] in figs .
[ fig - g-6d](a ) , [ fig - g-8d](a ) and [ fig - g-10d](a ) , we show typical behavior of the dimensionless bulk gauge couplings .
we have used the couplings @xmath78 at @xmath79 as inputs of rges :  @xcite @xmath80 @xmath81 and @xmath82 , i.e. , @xmath83 we note here that the @xmath15 has the landau pole @xmath16 .
the bulk gauge coupling @xmath84 rapidly grows due to the power - like behavior of the running . as a result ,
the landau pole @xmath16 is close to the compactification scale @xmath28 . a cutoff smaller than the landau pole @xmath16 needs to be introduced in our model .
a handy approximation for @xmath85 is widely used , @xmath86      2^{\delta/2 - 1 } n_{\rm kk}(\mu ) & \text{for $ i = f,$ }    \end{cases }    \label{nkki_app}\ ] ] with @xmath87 we show @xmath88 in figs .  [ fig - g-6d](b ) , [ fig - g-8d](b ) and [ fig - g-10d](b ) with the dash - dotted line .
the deviation of eq .
( [ nkki_app ] ) from the numerical calculations of @xmath64 is negligibly small for @xmath2 , whereas it is sizable for @xmath89 in @xmath90 .
we do not use the approximation of eq .
( [ nkki_app ] ) for the mac analysis ) in the previous report  @xcite .
while the mac analysis is somewhat affected by the approximation , the predictions of @xmath10 and @xmath29 are not .
] .    here
we comment on the uv - fp discussed in ref .
@xcite , which relies on the approximation of eq .
( [ nkk_app ] ) .
( see also refs .
@xcite . ) using eqs .
( [ nkki_app ] ) and ( [ nkk_app ] ) , ref .
@xcite gave a rge formula @xmath91 with @xmath92 being the loop factor in @xmath42 dimensions , @xmath93 the rge coefficients @xmath94 are @xmath95 the rge ( [ rge_ed3 ] ) leads to the uv - fp @xmath96  @xcite , @xmath97 for @xmath98 .
in the case of @xmath99 and @xmath100 , @xmath101 become negative and hence the bulk qcd has such a uv - fp .
on the other hand , in @xmath102 the bulk qcd coupling has a landau pole at @xmath103 .
there are several manners to define bulk gauge couplings . in this subsection
, we study bulk gauge couplings based on the proper - time ( pt ) regularization scheme with a matching condition slightly different from that in ref .
@xcite . in the pt - scheme ,
one - loop contributions of all kk modes are smoothly ( exponentially ) suppressed , whereas the contributions of kk modes heavier than the renormalization scale @xmath51 are sharply cut off in the truncated kk effective theory .
we here note that the landau pole @xmath16 is not so far from the compactification scale @xmath28 , particularly for @xmath89 .
under such a situation , numerical differences between @xmath13- , and pt - couplings may be significant .
we briefly present our definition of the pt - coupling and give the matching condition to the @xmath13-coupling through the effective charge .
see appendix b for details .
our 4-dimensional pt - coupling @xmath104 is a bare quantity defined at the cutoff @xmath11 , in sharp contrast to the @xmath13-coupling @xmath105 , which is a renormalized quantity .
the effective charge @xmath106 with euclidean momentum @xmath107 is obtained in the pt - scheme as @xmath108 with @xmath109 , @xmath110 and a constant @xmath111 to be discussed later .
the coefficient @xmath112 of the logarithmic divergent term from zero modes is given by @xmath113 where @xmath114 is the quadratic casimir of the adjoint representation , @xmath115 the trace of the product of two generator matrices , @xmath116 , and @xmath117 the number of flavor of 4-component fermions .
the constant term @xmath118 in eq .
( [ eff_pt_q ] ) arises from zero modes and is given by @xmath119 with @xmath120 the kk mode summation of the vacuum polarization function @xmath121 is calculated in the pt - scheme , @xmath122e^{-tx(1-x)q_e^2}k_g(t ) \nonumber \\    & & \hspace*{-4mm}-   \frac{\delta}{2 } \ , \frac{c_a}{(4\pi)^2 }   \int_0 ^ 1dx\int_{r\lambda^{-2}}^\infty\frac{dt}{t}\ ,   ( 2x-1)^2 e^{-tx(1-x)q_e^2 } k_{gs}(t ) \nonumber \\    & & \hspace*{-4mm}-    8t_r \ , \frac{n_f}{(4\pi)^2 }   \int_0 ^ 1dx\int_{r\lambda^{-2}}^\infty\frac{dt}{t}\ ,   x(1-x ) e^{-tx(1-x)q_e^2 } k_f ( t ) \nonumber \\    & & \hspace*{-4mm}-    t_r \ , \frac{n_h}{(4\pi)^2 }   \int_0 ^ 1dx\int_{r\lambda^{-2}}^\infty\frac{dt}{t}\ ,   ( 2x-1)^2 e^{-tx(1-x)q_e^2 } k_h ( t ) ,   \nonumber \\ \label{pi_pt_q}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath123 s are defined as @xmath124_1 }    \left[\,\frac{1}{2}(\vartheta_3 - 1)\,\right ] +    { \cal n}_i^{\delta,[n]_2 } \left[\,\frac{1}{2}(\vartheta_3 - 1)\,\right]^2 +     \cdots\ ] ] for @xmath65 , with @xmath125 being the jacobi @xmath125 function , @xmath126 .
the definition of the factor @xmath127_k}$ ] is given in appendix a. ( for values of @xmath127_k}$ ] in @xmath128 , see table [ tab1][tab3 ] . )    on the other hand , the effective charge @xmath106 is also calculated in the @xmath13-scheme  @xcite , @xmath129 where @xmath130 and @xmath131      \nonumber \\ & &    + \frac{\delta}{2 } \ , c_a \
, i_s^r(q_e^2;m_{\vec n}^2 )      \nonumber \\ & &     + 8 t_r \ , n_f \ , i_f^r(q_e^2;m_{\vec n}^2 )      \nonumber \\ & &     + t_r \ n_h \ , i_s^r(q_e^2;m_{\vec n}^2 ) , \end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath132 the constant term from zero modes is given by @xmath133    now , we impose the matching condition to relate the pt- and @xmath13-couplings : @xmath134 i.e. , @xmath135 following ref .
@xcite , we further impose a condition , @xmath136 in @xmath137 .
the parameter @xmath111 of the pt - cutoff is then determined as @xmath138 the matching condition in ref .
@xcite roughly corresponds to @xmath139 with @xmath140 .
there is an ambiguity associated with the matching scale @xmath141 . on the other hand , eq .
( [ match_cond ] ) includes effects of the finite parts @xmath142 and hence is less ambiguous about the matching scale .
the matching condition  ( [ match_cond ] ) determines values of pt - couplings at @xmath143 tev , @xmath144 while the corresponding values in the @xmath13-scheme at @xmath145 tev are @xmath146 where inputs are eqs .
( [ qcd - mz ] ) and ( [ su2-mz ] ) . at the compactification scale @xmath28 , the scheme dependence between the pt- , @xmath13-couplings are not significant for @xmath128 .
in order to discuss the scheme dependence at the scale beyond @xmath28 , we define the dimensionless bulk gauge coupling in the pt - scheme @xmath147 , @xmath148 in the same way as eq .
( [ hat - g ] ) , where @xmath149 is the 4-dimensional coupling . in the next section
, we will discuss the scheme dependence of the couplings , @xmath147 and @xmath150 : the scheme dependence near the landau pole @xmath16 is small for @xmath151 , while it is significant for @xmath3 .
in this section , we analyze the energy scale @xmath22 ( tmac scale ) where the top condensate is the mac and only in the @xmath9-channel the binding strength exceeds the critical value , i.e. , @xmath152 where @xmath23 are given in terms of the sm gauge couplings in the bulk such as those shown in figs .
[ fig - g-6d](a ) , [ fig - g-8d](a ) , [ fig - g-10d](a ) and the critical binding strength @xmath17 is determined by the ladder sd equation  @xcite .
this is contrasted to the mac analysis in ref .
@xcite where it was assumed that @xmath153 and that the value is large enough to trigger the d@xmath14sb .
however , as we have shown in figs .
[ fig - g-6d](a ) , [ fig - g-8d](a ) and [ fig - g-10d](a ) , values of the couplings at the scale where @xmath154 are not necessarily large , @xmath155 , for @xmath128 .
it is thus highly non - trivial whether or not the tmac scale @xmath22 exists .    as usual , we discuss the mac based on the one - gauge - boson - exchange approximation  @xcite . the binding strength @xmath156 of a @xmath157 channel is given by @xmath158 where @xmath159 , @xmath160 are the generators of @xmath161 , and @xmath162 is the hypercharge . noting the identity @xmath163 with @xmath164 being the quadratic casimir for the representation @xmath111 of the gauge group , we calculate the binding strengths : @xmath165 for the top , bottom and tau condensates , respectively , where @xmath166 is the quadratic casimir of the fundamental representation of @xmath55 . in the following analysis , we study these three channels .
we next turn to the estimation of the critical binding strength @xmath17 .
often applied is the naive dimensional analysis ( nda )  @xcite , @xmath24 . on the other hand ,
the value of @xmath17 is fairly smaller than that of the nda in the approach of the improved ladder sd equation  @xcite , @xmath167 there are actually some issues in the estimation of @xmath17 through the ladder sd equation :    * non - ladder corrections may push the value of @xmath17 down as much as 120% , as in the analysis of the 4-dimensional walking technocolor  @xcite . *
another momentum identification of the ( dimensionful ) running coupling constant requires the nonlocal gauge fixing  @xcite , which pushes up the value of @xmath17 as  @xcite , @xmath168 * the values in eqs .
( [ kd_sd1])([kd_sd2 ] ) were obtained under the assumption that the dimensionless bulk gauge coupling @xmath73 is constant . as shown in figs .
[ fig - g-6d](a ) , [ fig - g-8d](a ) and [ fig - g-10d](a ) , all of bulk gauge couplings @xmath169 are monotonously increasing functions .
this means that the attractive force is overestimated under the simplification of @xmath170 const .
, i.e. , the momentum dependence of @xmath73 makes values of @xmath17 larger than eqs .
( [ kd_sd1])([kd_sd2 ] ) . *
effects of the compactification were also neglected in the estimate of eqs .
( [ kd_sd1])([kd_sd2 ] ) . if such effects are included , the value of @xmath17 becomes also larger .
taking these issues into account , we may regard the value of @xmath17 in eq .
( [ kd_sd1 ] ) to be a reference value as the best compromise .
+    now , we are ready to investigate the tmac scale .
we show behavior of the binding strengths @xmath23 both in the @xmath13- and pt - couplings in figs .
[ fig - tmac-6d][fig - tmac-10d ] to study the scheme dependence .
we first discuss the tmac scale based on the @xmath13-coupling .
we compare attractive forces of top , bottom , and tau condensates with @xmath17 in figs .
[ fig - tmac-6d](a ) , [ fig - tmac-8d](a ) and [ fig - tmac-10d](a ) for @xmath171 tev .
as the value of @xmath17 becomes larger , the tmac scale gets squeezed .    for @xmath2
, we find that _ the tmac scale is squeezed out _
, if we use _ the reference value _ @xmath172 eq .
( [ kd_sd1 ] ) .
the conclusion is unchanged against varying the compactification scale as far as @xmath173 tev .
actually , the tau condensation instead of the top condensation becomes the mac . in order for the tmac scale to survive
, the value of @xmath172 should be lower than the reference value by about 20% for @xmath32 1100 tev , which is highly unlikely .
thus the scenario does not work for @xmath2 .
for @xmath1 , on the other hand , the tmac scale @xmath22 satisfying eq .
( [ top - cond - sec3 ] ) does exist , @xmath174 for the reference value of @xmath17 .
if we vary the compactification scale as @xmath175100 tev , we find the tmac scale , @xmath176    for @xmath3 , the tmac scale does not exist for @xmath177 tev .
if we admit @xmath178 tev , we barely find the tmac scale @xmath179@xmath180 for @xmath181@xmath182 tev .
we have studied the tmac scale so far by using the @xmath13-coupling . in order to clarify the scheme dependence
, we also investigate the pt - coupling in the mac analysis .
we show binding strengths @xmath23 in the pt - scheme in figs .
[ fig - tmac-6d](b ) , [ fig - tmac-8d](b ) and [ fig - tmac-10d](b ) for @xmath171 tev .
we find that the scheme dependence is negligibly small for @xmath2 .
although behavior of the binding strengths @xmath23 for @xmath1 somewhat depends on the regularization scheme , there does exist an overlapped region of the tmac scale between the @xmath13- and pt - schemes . for @xmath3
, however , the scheme dependence is rather large : there is no overlap of the tmac scale for @xmath175@xmath183 tev .
in conclusion we have shown that the region of the tmac scale is squeezed out for @xmath2 , while the tmac scale does exist for @xmath1 without much ambiguity . for @xmath3
, we can not obtain a reliable result because of the significant scheme dependence .
in this section , we calculate the top mass @xmath10 and the higgs mass @xmath29 by using rges of the top yukawa and higgs quartic couplings with the compositeness conditions  @xcite in a way used by acdh  @xcite .
let us first recapitulate the compositeness conditions in ref .
@xcite : assume that the top condensation takes place in the bulk . then , at the compositeness scale @xmath11 , a scalar bound state @xmath184 ( composite higgs ) , @xmath185 is formed in the bulk , where @xmath186 $ ] and @xmath187 are bulk fermions . at this stage ,
the composite higgs @xmath184 does not propagate in the bulk .
its kinetic term is expected to develop at the scale below @xmath11 .
it is assumed that the effective theory below @xmath11 is described by the bulk sm . in the truncated kk
effective theory of the bulk sm , the compositeness conditions then read @xmath188 where @xmath34 and @xmath189 denote the top yukawa and higgs quartic couplings , respectively .
we shall use the above procedure to calculate @xmath10 and @xmath29 .
in contrast to the acdh analysis , however , we have shown existence of the tmac scale for @xmath1 without much ambiguity and hence the extra dimension scenario of the tmsm is actually possible . furthermore , while the compositeness scale @xmath11 in ref .
@xcite was treated as a free parameter to be adjusted for reproducing the experimental value of @xmath10 , we identify the compositeness scale @xmath11 with the tmac scale @xmath22 , @xmath190 which is no longer an adjustable parameter but constrained as eq .
( [ tmac ] ) .
thus we can test our model by comparing the predicted @xmath10 with the experimental value .    within the truncated kk
effective theory , rges for @xmath34 and @xmath189 read  ) are missing in the rges of ref .
@xmath191 & ( 4\pi)^2 \mu \frac{d \lambda}{d \mu } =    \beta_\lambda^{\rm sm } + \beta_\lambda^{\rm kk } ,   \label{rge_lam}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath192 , \\[2 mm ] \beta_y^{\rm kk } & = &    \left ( 6 { n_{\rm kk}^f}+\frac{3}{2 } { n_{\rm kk}^h}\right)\,y^3    \nonumber \\ & & \quad   -{n_{\rm kk}^g}\left ( 8 g_3 ^ 2 + \frac{9}{4 } g_2 ^ 2 + \frac{17}{12 } g_y^2 \right)\,y    \nonumber \\ & & \quad    - \delta { n_{\rm kk}^{gs}}\left(\frac{4}{3 } g_3 ^ 2 - \frac{3}{8 } g_2 ^ 2 - \frac{1}{72 } g_y^2 \right)\,y ,   \label{rge_y - ed } \\
\beta_\lambda^{\rm sm } & = &    12 \left(\lambda y^2-y^4\right ) + 12\lambda^2 \nonumber \\ & & \quad     + \frac{3}{4}(3 g_2 ^ 4 + 2g_2 ^ 2 g_y^2 + g_y^4 ) \nonumber \\ & & \quad
-3(3g_2 ^ 2+g_y^2)\lambda , \\ \beta_\lambda^{\rm kk } & = &     24 { n_{\rm kk}^f}\left(\lambda y^2-y^4\right )    + 12 { n_{\rm kk}^h}\lambda^2   \nonumber \\ & & \hspace*{-0.5 cm }   + { n_{\rm kk}^g}\left[\ ,     \frac{3}{4}\left(3 g_2 ^ 4 + 2g_2 ^ 2 g_y^2 + g_y^4\right )   - 3(3g_2 ^ 2+g_y^2)\lambda\,\right ] \nonumber \\ & & \hspace*{-0.5 cm }   + \frac{\delta}{4 } { n_{\rm kk}^{gs}}(3 g_2 ^ 4 + 2g_2 ^ 2 g_y^2 + g_y^4 ) .
\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that @xmath193 and @xmath194 stand for contributions of zero modes and kk modes , respectively .
we calculate the rges by using the uv - bcs eq .
( [ comp - cond ] ) and determine @xmath10 and @xmath29 through the conditions , @xmath195 with @xmath196 gev .
+     +     +    we show results of @xmath10 and @xmath29 in figs .
[ mt - mh-6d ] , [ mt - mh ] , [ mt - mh-10d ] for @xmath128 , @xmath171 tev for various values of the compositeness scale @xmath11 . as we have shown in sec .
iii , the tmac scale does exist only for @xmath1 without much ambiguity , @xmath26@xmath27 . identifying @xmath11 with @xmath22
, we depict the region of the tmac scale for @xmath1 by the shaded area in fig .
[ mt - mh ] .
there is no shaded region in figs .
[ mt - mh-6d ] and [ mt - mh-10d ] , because a sensible tmac scale is absent for @xmath197 .
for @xmath1 we predict @xmath198 and @xmath199 for the range of the compactification scale @xmath32 1100 tev . the uncertainties in eqs .
( [ 8d - mt ] ) and ( [ 8d - mh ] ) also include error of @xmath200  @xcite .    remarkably , the prediction eq .
( [ 8d - mt ] ) for @xmath10 is consistent with the reality , the @xmath13-mass @xmath201 gev which is calculated from the observed value of the pole mass , @xmath202 gev  @xcite .
it should be emphasized that the compositeness scale @xmath11 in ref .
@xcite is an arbitrary parameter and was adjusted to reproduce the experimental value of the top mass . on the contrary ,
our compositeness scale @xmath11 is fixed by the tmac scale @xmath22 by requiring that the top quark condensation actually takes place , while other condensations do not .
hence the top mass as well as the higgs mass is the prediction in our approach .    compared with the prediction of ref .
@xcite , @xmath203 gev for @xmath1 , eq .
( [ 8d - mh ] ) is determined more sharply .
this is because our compositeness scale @xmath11 is given by the tmac scale @xmath22 which is more severely constrained than @xmath11 of ref .
@xcite , the value determined from the top mass within 3@xmath204 of the experimental value .
we now discuss the reason why the value of eq .
( [ 8d - mt ] ) is significantly smaller than that of the original tmsm in four dimensions which predicted @xmath205 gev .
let us consider a simplified rge for @xmath34 neglecting the electroweak gauge interactions : @xmath206 with @xmath207 , @xmath208 .
using eq .
( [ nkki_app ] ) as an approximation for @xmath209 and equating the r.h.s . of eq .
( [ y_app ] ) to zero , we find the quasi ir fixed point @xmath210  @xcite @xmath211 the value of eq .
( [ qir ] ) decreases as @xmath212 increases at @xmath213 , since the value of @xmath214 is determined within the sm independently of @xmath59 . in the original tmsm with @xmath215 the prediction of @xmath10
is governed by eq .
( [ qir ] ) with @xmath216  @xcite . as a result ,
the prediction of @xmath10 with @xmath217 is substantially lower than that of the original tmsm with @xmath218 .
the mechanism is still operative even including the electroweak gauge interactions : in fig .
[ ir - fp ] , we show the quasi ir fixed point and the behavior of @xmath34 based on the full one - loop rge ( [ rge_y ] ) with various boundary conditions at @xmath11 .
we also show the pendleton - ross ( pr ) fixed point  @xcite determined from @xmath219 : @xmath220 with @xmath101 being @xmath221 and @xmath222 , @xmath223 . for @xmath224 the pr fixed point
is identical to the quasi ir fixed point .
as far as @xmath225 @xmath226 , the value of the pr fixed point is smaller than that of the quasi ir fixed point , @xmath227 , while @xmath228 for @xmath3 .
the top yukawa coupling at @xmath28 for @xmath151 is actually between @xmath229 and @xmath230 for a sufficiently large top yukawa , @xmath231 , at high energy scale @xmath232 .
we note here that the actual prediction of @xmath10 with @xmath151 is even smaller than the value expected from @xmath230 .
we also comment that the predicted values of @xmath10 and @xmath29 would be stable thanks to these fixed points , even if the estimate of the tmac scale were somewhat changed from ours for some reason .    as was already pointed out in ref .
@xcite , the lower value prediction of @xmath10 than that of the original tmsm can also be understood as follows : since kk modes of the top quark ( @xmath233 ) as well as its zero mode ( @xmath234 ) contribute to the vev @xmath235 , @xmath236 the condensate @xmath237 is suppressed compared with the original tmsm and so is the top mass .
now we discuss implication of our higgs mass prediction eq .
( [ 8d - mh ] ) .
the upper limit of @xmath29 from radiative corrections in the sm is @xmath238 gev at 95% cl  @xcite .
the prediction eq .
( [ 8d - mh ] ) is still below this upper limit . in order to discriminate the present model from the sm in experiments , we need further information of physics at the compactification scale .
however , the higgs boson in such a mass range , @xmath7 gev , is characteristically small within the framework of the dynamical ewsb . yet
the value is substantially larger than that of typical supersymmetric models , @xmath239 gev .
thus the present scenario is clearly distinguished from most of the models beyond the sm simply through the higgs mass observation .
the higgs boson of this mass range decays into weak boson pair almost 100% .
it will be immediately discovered in @xmath8 once the lhc starts .
we have argued a viable top mode standard model ( tmsm ) with tev - scale extra dimensions where bulk @xmath240 sm gauge interactions ( without ad hoc four - fermion interactions ) trigger condensate of only the top quark , but not of other quarks and leptons . in order for
such a situation to be realized , the binding strength @xmath156 should exceed the critical binding strength @xmath17 only for the top quark ( tmac ) , @xmath241 the binding strengths @xmath23 were calculated by using rges for bulk sm gauge couplings . comparing @xmath23 with @xmath17 , we searched for the region of the tmac scale @xmath22 satisfying eq .
( [ top - cond - fin ] ) .
we then found that the region of the tmac scale is squeezed out for @xmath2 for the reference value of @xmath17 in ref .
@xcite , while it does exist for @xmath1 , @xmath242 ( 3.53.6)@xmath28 . we were not able to draw a reliable conclusion for @xmath3 , since the mac analysis for @xmath3 strongly depends on the regularization scheme .    for @xmath1 , we predicted the top mass @xmath10 and the higgs mass @xmath29 : @xmath243 and @xmath244 by using rges for the top yukawa and higgs quartic couplings with the compositeness conditions at the tmac scale @xmath22 .
our predictions are governed by the quasi ir - fp and hence are stable against varying the composite scale .
the predicted values would not be changed so much , even if the region of the tmac scale got wider than our estimate for some reason .
why is the value of eq .
( [ mt - fin ] ) significantly smaller than that of the original tmsm in four dimensions which predicted @xmath205 gev ?
the value of the top yukawa coupling at the quasi ir - fp is @xmath245 .
thanks to the suppression factor @xmath40 in @xmath34 , the mass of the top quark decreases as the number of dimensions increases .    the predicted higgs mass eq .
( [ mh - fin ] ) is substantially larger than that of typical supersymmetric models , while it is distinctively small as a dynamical ewsb scenario .
we are thus able to distinguish the present model from typical supersymmetric or dynamical ewsb scenarios simply through the higgs mass observation .
we also note that the higgs boson in this mass range will be immediately discovered in @xmath8 once the lhc starts .
the upper limit of @xmath29 from radiative corrections in the sm is @xmath238 gev at 95% cl  @xcite and the predicted value eq .
( [ mh - fin ] ) is below this upper limit , however .
it is thus difficult to discriminate the higgs in the present model from that of the sm only from its mass .
we definitely need experimental information other than @xmath29 in order to establish the present model .
many issues remain to be explored :    \1 ) our results on the tmac scale are sensitive to the value of @xmath17 . although we used the reference value of @xmath17 in the approach of the ladder sd equation neglecting the effect of the compactification , it would be more preferable if we can determine @xmath17 more reliably .
for such a purpose , we should take into account effects of the compactification scale @xmath28 which turned out not so small compared with the tmac scale @xmath22 in our analysis .
we also need running of bulk gauge couplings beyond one - loop perturbation .
\2 ) we incorporated only one composite higgs doublet into rges , assuming other possible bound states such as vector / axial - vector bosons are irrelevant . in order to justify the assumption , we need to solve bound state problems in the bulk gauge theories .
once such a composite scalar exists , it should be a tightly bound state formed by strong short distance dynamics with large anomalous dimension .
such a system is expected to resemble the gauged nambu - jona - lasinio ( gnjl ) model where the compositeness condition is explicitly formulated . actually ,
as it happened in the 4-dimensional case  @xcite , the pure gauge dynamics strong at short distance in our case can also induce strong four - fermion interactions which may become relevant operators due to large anomalous dimensions , @xmath246  @xcite . we will report elsewhere the phase structure of the bulk gnjl model  @xcite .
\3 ) there are potential constraints on our model from precision electroweak measurements .
the summation of kk modes below the cutoff @xmath11 contributes to @xmath247 as @xmath248  @xcite . in our case with @xmath30 , @xmath249 for @xmath1 , we thus need to take @xmath250 , which may be subtle about the fine tuning .
more involved estimate will be done elsewhere .
\4 ) masses of other quarks and leptons have not been dealt with in this paper . in the original tmsm , these masses are descended from the top condensate through ad hoc flavor - breaking four - fermion interactions  @xcite .
the origin of such four - fermion interactions will be highly hoped for in the present scenario .
\5 ) our scenario crucially relies on the short distance strong dynamics around the composite scale .
we thus need a better - controlled theory in the uv - region .
it would be interesting to study a deconstructed / latticized version  @xcite of our model .
the work is supported in part by the jsps grant - in - aid for the scientific research ( b)(2 ) 14340072 ( k.y . and m.t . ) and by krf pbrg 2002 - 070-c00022 ( m.h . ) .
the torus compactification of extra dimensions leaves vector - like zero - modes in the 4-dimensional space - time , even if we start with a chiral gauge theory in the bulk .
we thus need to compactify the extra dimensions to an orbifold in order to obtain the conventional sm particles as zero modes .
an example of such a compactification was explicitly constructed in ref.@xcite based on the @xmath252 orbifold for @xmath253 ( @xmath254 even ) dimensions . in this appendix
, we discuss the massive kk spectrum in the orbifold compactification of ref.@xcite .
let us start with the 6-dimensional case ( @xmath253 , @xmath256 ) .
the 6-dimensional space - time is decomposed into conventional and extra dimensions , @xmath257 with @xmath258 , @xmath259 and @xmath260 .
we assume the compactification radius @xmath261 and the fields at @xmath262 and @xmath263 are identified with the field at @xmath264 .
we thus impose the periodic boundary conditions ,    @xmath265    for a gauge field and @xmath266 for a fermion .
the @xmath267 identification of the orbifold @xmath268 leads to the orbifold boundary conditions ( bcs ) ,    @xmath269    here @xmath270 and @xmath271 are chirality matrices in four- and six - dimensions , respectively to that in ref .
] , @xmath272    it is easy to show that the gauge - vector field @xmath273 is decomposed into its kk - modes , @xmath274 }        \cos\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^5}{r}\right )    \nonumber\\    & &       + \sum_{n_1>0 } a_{\mu , 0c}^{[n_1 ] }        \cos\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^6}{r}\right )     \nonumber\\    & & + \sum_{n_1 , n_2 > 0 } a_{\mu , cc}^{[n_1 , n_2 ] }          \cos\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^5}{r}\right )          \cos\left(\dfrac{n_2 y^6}{r}\right )    \nonumber\\    & &        + \sum_{n_1 , n_2 > 0 } a_{\mu , ss}^{[n_1 , n_2 ] }          \sin\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^5}{r}\right )          \sin\left(\dfrac{n_2 y^6}{r}\right),\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath275 , @xmath276 being positive integers , where we omitted the arguments for the kk - modes at @xmath277 , except for the zero mode @xmath278 .
we note that the orbifold condition eq.([eq : z2_gauge_vector ] ) leads to @xmath279 } =     a_{\mu , s0}^{[n_1 ] } =     a_{\mu , cs}^{[n_1,n_2 ] } =     a_{\mu , sc}^{[n_1,n_2 ] } = 0\ ] ] in the kk - spectrum . in order to investigate the kk - spectrum
, we define sets of the kk - fields ,    @xmath280 } & \equiv &     \ { a_{\mu , c0}^{[n_1]}(x ) , \ , a_{\mu , 0c}^{[n_1]}(x ) \ } , \\    { \cal a}_\mu^{\delta=2 , [ n_1,n_2 ] } & \equiv &     \ { a_{\mu , cc}^{[n_1,n_2]}(x ) , \ ,   a_{\mu , ss}^{[n_1,n_2]}(x ) \}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    [ eq : gauge_vector_set ]    the masses of these kk - states are given by @xmath281 for a state contained in @xmath282}$ ] and @xmath283 for @xmath284}$ ] . using the number of elements of these sets , @xmath285 } =    { \cal n}_g^{\delta=2,[n_1,n_2 ] } = 2,\ ] ] the number of kk - modes of gauge bosons @xmath273 with @xmath286
is written as @xmath287 } \cdot n_1(\mu )       + { \cal n}_g^{\delta=2,[n_1,n_2 ] } \cdot n_2(\mu)\end{aligned}\ ] ] for @xmath255 dimensions , where @xmath288 and @xmath289 are given by @xmath290 respectively .
it is straightforward to perform similar analysis for the gauge scalar @xmath291 . since the zero - mode of @xmath291
is projected out from the kk - spectrum due to the orbifold bc ( [ eq : z2_gauge_scalar ] ) , the kk decomposition of @xmath291 is given by @xmath292 }        \sin\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^5}{r}\right )    \nonumber\\    & &       + \sum_{n_1>0 } a_{m , 0s}^{[n_1 ] }        \sin\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^6}{r}\right )     \nonumber\\    & & + \sum_{n_1 , n_2 > 0 } a_{m , cs}^{[n_1 , n_2 ] }          \cos\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^5}{r}\right )          \sin\left(\dfrac{n_2 y^6}{r}\right )    \nonumber\\    & &        + \sum_{n_1 , n_2 > 0 } a_{m , sc}^{[n_1 , n_2 ] }          \sin\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^5}{r}\right )          \cos\left(\dfrac{n_2 y^6}{r}\right).\end{aligned}\ ] ] sets of the kk - fields are defined as    @xmath293 } & \equiv &     \ { a_{m , s0}^{[n_1]}(x ) , \ , a_{m , 0s}^{[n_1]}(x ) \ } , \\    { \cal a}_m^{\delta=2 , [ n_1,n_2 ] } & \equiv &     \ { a_{m , cs}^{[n_1,n_2]}(x ) , \ ,   a_{m , sc}^{[n_1,n_2]}(x ) \}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    in a similar manner to eqs.([eq : gauge_vector_set ] ) , where the number of elements are given by @xmath294 } =    { \cal n}_{gs}^{\delta=2,[n_1,n_2 ] } = 2.\ ] ]
we can now easily count the number of kk - modes of the gauge scalars @xmath291 , @xmath295 } \cdot n_1(\mu )        + { \cal n}_{gs}^{\delta=2,[n_1,n_2 ] } \cdot n_2(\mu).\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we next consider the kk spectrum of the bulk chiral fermion @xmath296 , @xmath297 in @xmath255 dimensions , which has obviously 4-components .
the orbifold bc ( [ eq : z2_fermion ] ) reads @xmath298 the kk expansion of @xmath299 is thus given by @xmath300}(x )          \cos\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^5}{r}\right )    \nonumber\\    & & + \sum_{n_1>0 } \psi_{+,0c}^{[n_1]}(x )          \cos\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^6}{r}\right )    \nonumber\\    & & + \sum_{n_1,n_2>0 } \psi_{+,cc}^{[n_1,n_2]}(x )          \cos\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^5}{r}\right )          \cos\left(\dfrac{n_2 y^6}{r}\right )    \nonumber\\    & & + \sum_{n_1,n_2>0 } \psi_{+,ss}^{[n_1,n_2]}(x )          \sin\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^5}{r}\right )          \sin\left(\dfrac{n_2 y^6}{r}\right )    \nonumber\\    & & + \sum_{n_1>0 } \psi_{+,s0}^{[n_1]}(x )          \sin\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^5}{r}\right )    \nonumber\\    & & + \sum_{n_1>0 } \psi_{+,0s}^{[n_1]}(x )          \sin\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^6}{r}\right )    \nonumber\\    & & + \sum_{n_1,n_2>0 } \psi_{+,cs}^{[n_1,n_2]}(x )          \cos\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^5}{r}\right )          \sin\left(\dfrac{n_2 y^6}{r}\right )    \nonumber\\    & & + \sum_{n_1,n_2>0 } \psi_{+,sc}^{[n_1,n_2]}(x )          \sin\left(\dfrac{n_1 y^5}{r}\right )          \cos\left(\dfrac{n_2 y^6}{r}\right )    \nonumber\\    & & \end{aligned}\ ] ] with 2-component fermions .
in particular , we find that the zero - mode is right - handed under the 4-dimensional chiral rotation , thanks to eq.([eq : z2_fermion ] ) , @xmath301 other kk modes include both of right , and left - handed fermions .
we thus define sets of kk - fields ,    @xmath302 } & \equiv &    \ { \psi_{+,c0}^{[n_1]}(x ) , \ , \psi_{+,0c}^{[n_1]}(x ) \ } ,    \\
\psi_{+,r}^{\delta=2 , [ n_1,n_2 ] } & \equiv &    \ { \psi_{+,cc}^{[n_1,n_2]}(x ) , \ , \psi_{+,ss}^{[n_1,n_2]}(x ) \ } ,    \\
\psi_{+,l}^{\delta=2 , [ n_1 ] } & \equiv &    \ { \psi_{+,s0}^{[n_1]}(x ) , \ , \psi_{+,0s}^{[n_1]}(x ) \ } ,    \\
\psi_{+,l}^{\delta=2 , [ n_1,n_2 ] } & \equiv &    \
{ \psi_{+,cs}^{[n_1,n_2]}(x ) , \ , \psi_{+,sc}^{[n_1,n_2]}(x ) \}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the kk fields in @xmath303}$ ] and @xmath304}$ ] ( @xmath305}$ ] and @xmath306}$ ] ) are right - handed ( left - handed ) .
these kk - modes acquire their dirac masses among @xmath303}$ ] and @xmath305}$ ] ( @xmath304}$ ] and @xmath306}$ ] ) in four dimensions .
the number of these kk dirac fermions is therefore given by @xmath307 } \cdot n_1(\mu )        + { \cal n}_f^{\delta=2,[n_1,n_2 ] } \cdot n_2(\mu ) \label{nkk_f}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with    @xmath308 }    & \equiv &   \ # \psi_{+,r}^{2,[n_1 ] }     \nonumber\\    & = & \ # \psi_{+,l}^{2,[n_1 ] } = 2 ,     \\    { \cal n}_f^{\delta=2,[n_1,n_2 ] }    & \equiv & \ # \psi_{+,r}^{2,[n_1,n_2 ] }     \nonumber\\    & = & \ # \psi_{+,l}^{2,[n_1,n_2 ] } = 2 .
\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we note @xmath309 for @xmath255 dimensions .
it is straightforward to apply the above procedure to the bulk chiral fermion @xmath310 , @xmath311 we easily find that the zero mode of @xmath310 is left - handed .
we thus identify the right[left]-handed fermions in the sm to @xmath296 [ @xmath310 ] .
the number of the kk dirac fermions for @xmath313 is equal to eq .
( [ nkk_f ] ) .    for the ( composite ) higgs field , we take the same @xmath267 identification as eq .
( [ eq : z2_gauge_vector ] ) .
this always leads to @xmath314 for the number of kk modes of the higgs field .
hereafter , we abbreviate @xmath59 in the arguments of @xmath315 , @xmath316 , when the number of @xmath59 is obvious .
let us next turn to the 8-dimensional case ( @xmath253 , @xmath318 ) , @xmath319 we impose the orbifold bcs :    @xmath320    and @xmath321    with @xmath322 noting the relations , @xmath323 we can easily see that the zero - mode of the 8-dimensional bulk chiral fermion @xmath299 is chiral under the 4-dimensional chiral symmetry .
the bulk gauge field is decomposed into its kk - modes in a similar manner with the @xmath255 case .
we obtain    @xmath324_1 } = } \nonumber\\    & & \ { a_{\mu , c000}^{[n]_1 } , \ , a_{\mu , 0c00}^{[n]_1 } , \ ,            a_{\mu , 00c0}^{[n]_1 } , \ , a_{\mu , 000c}^{[n]_1 } \ } ,    \\
\lefteqn {    { \cal a}_\mu^{\delta=4,[n]_2 } = } \nonumber\\    & & \ { a_{\mu , cc00}^{[n]_2 } , \ ,
a_{\mu , 00cc}^{[n]_2 } , \ ,            a_{\mu , ss00}^{[n]_2 } , \ , a_{\mu , 00ss}^{[n]_2 } , \
,    \nonumber\\    & & \quad           a_{\mu , c0c0}^{[n]_2 } , \ , a_{\mu , c00c}^{[n]_2 } , \ ,            a_{\mu , 0cc0}^{[n]_2 } , \ , a_{\mu , 0c0c}^{[n]_2 } \ } ,    \\ \lefteqn {    { \cal a}_\mu^{\delta=4,[n]_3 } = } \nonumber\\    & & \ { a_{\mu , ccc0}^{[n]_3 } , \ , a_{\mu , cc0c}^{[n]_3 } , \ ,            a_{\mu , c0cc}^{[n]_3 } , \ , a_{\mu , 0ccc}^{[n]_3 } , \ ,    \nonumber\\    & & \quad           a_{\mu , ssc0}^{[n]_3 } , \ , a_{\mu , ss0c}^{[n]_3 } , \ ,            a_{\mu , c0ss}^{[n]_3 } , \ , a_{\mu , 0css}^{[n]_3 } \ } ,    \\
\lefteqn {    { \cal a}_\mu^{\delta=4,[n]_4 } = } \nonumber\\    & & \ { a_{\mu , cccc}^{[n]_4 } , \ ,
a_{\mu , ccss}^{[n]_4 } , \ ,            a_{\mu , sscc}^{[n]_4 } , \ , a_{\mu , ssss}^{[n]_4 } \},\end{aligned}\ ] ]    for the kk - expansion of @xmath273 . here
@xmath325_i$ ] stands for @xmath326_1\equiv [ n_1 ] , \quad    [ n]_2\equiv [ n_1 , n_2 ] , \quad    [ n]_3\equiv [ n_1 , n_2 , n_3 ] , \cdots.\ ] ] we thus find    @xmath327_1 } & = & 4 , \quad    { \cal n}_g^{\delta=4,[n]_2 } = 8 , \\    { \cal n}_g^{\delta=4,[n]_3 } & = & 8 , \quad    { \cal n}_g^{\delta=4,[n]_4 } = 4.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    for @xmath291 ( @xmath260 ) we obtain    @xmath328_1 } = } \nonumber\\    & & \ { a_{m , s000}^{[n]_1 } , \ , a_{m , 0s00}^{[n]_1 } \ } ,    \\
\lefteqn {    { \cal a}_m^{\delta=4,[n]_2 } = } \nonumber\\    & & \ { a_{m , sc00}^{[n]_2 } , \ , a_{m , cs00}^{[n]_2 } , \ ,            a_{m , s0c0}^{[n]_2 } , \ , a_{m , s00c}^{[n]_2 } , \ ,    \nonumber\\    & & \quad           a_{m , 0sc0}^{[n]_2 } , \ , a_{\mu , 0s0c}^{[n]_2 } \ } ,    \\
\lefteqn {    { \cal a}_m^{\delta=4,[n]_3 } = } \nonumber\\    & & \ { a_{m , scc0}^{[n]_3 } , \ , a_{m , sc0c}^{[n]_3 } , \ ,            a_{m , csc0}^{[n]_3 } , \ , a_{m , cs0c}^{[n]_3 } , \ ,    \nonumber\\    & & \quad           a_{m , s0cc}^{[n]_3 } , \ , a_{m , 0scc}^{[n]_3 } , \ ,            a_{m , s0ss}^{[n]_3 } , \ , a_{m , 0sss}^{[n]_3 } \ } ,    \\
\lefteqn {    { \cal a}_m^{\delta=4,[n]_4 } = } \nonumber\\    & & \ { a_{m , sccc}^{[n]_4 } , \ , a_{m , cscc}^{[n]_4 } , \ ,
a_{m , scss}^{[n]_4 } , \ , a_{m , csss}^{[n]_4 } \}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    it is straightforward to obtain similar expression for @xmath329 ( @xmath330 ) . we find    @xmath331_1 }    & = & 2 , \quad    { \cal n}_{gs}^{\delta=4,[n]_2 }     = 6 , \\    { \cal n}_{gs}^{\delta=4,[n]_3 }
& = & 8 , \quad    { \cal n}_{gs}^{\delta=4,[n]_4 }     = 4.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the numbers of kk - modes of gauge fields and gauge scalars are given by    @xmath332_k } \cdot n_k(\mu ) , \\
{ n_{\rm kk}^{gs}}(\mu ; \delta=4 )    & = &        \sum_{k=1}^4 { \cal n}_{gs}^{4,[n]_k } \cdot n_k(\mu ) , \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath333 s are defined in eq.([eq : n1n2 ] ) for @xmath334 and @xmath335 for @xmath336 .
for a bulk chiral fermion @xmath299 in @xmath253 ( @xmath318 ) dimensions , we find    @xmath337_1 }     & \equiv &   \ # \psi_{+,r}^{4,[n]_1 }     \nonumber\\    & = & \ # \psi_{+,l}^{4,[n]_1 } = 4 ,     \\    { \cal n}_f^{\delta=4,[n]_2 }     & \equiv &   \ # \psi_{+,r}^{4,[n]_2 }     \nonumber\\    & = & \ # \psi_{+,l}^{4,[n]_2 } = 12 ,     \\    { \cal n}_f^{\delta=4,[n]_3 }     & \equiv &   \ # \psi_{+,r}^{4,[n]_3 }     \nonumber\\    & = & \ # \psi_{+,l}^{4,[n]_3 } = 16 ,     \\    { \cal n}_f^{\delta=4,[n]_4 }     & \equiv &   \ # \psi_{+,r}^{4,[n]_4 }     \nonumber\\    & = & \ # \psi_{+,l}^{4,[n]_4 } = 8.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the number of 4-component dirac kk - modes is then given by @xmath338_k } \cdot n_k(\mu).\ ] ]    here , we note @xmath339 and @xmath340 in our orbifold compactification , because of @xmath341_2 } \ne { \cal n}_{gs}^{\delta=4,[n]_2 } ,      \quad       { \cal n}_g^{\delta=4,[n]_2 } \ne \frac{1}{2}{\cal n}_f^{\delta=4,[n]_2}.\ ] ] the differences between them impact on the running of @xmath342 around @xmath343 .
the bulk qcd coupling in eq .
( [ rge_ed2 ] ) grows slowly , comparing with that in the approximation ( [ rge_ed3 ] ) . as a result
, the region of the tmac scale is slightly suppressed , if the identical value for @xmath344 at the compactification scale @xmath28 is used in both rges .
( see fig .
[ fig - tmac-8d](a ) and fig .  2 in ref .
) we also comment on the relation @xmath345 in our orbifold compactification .
it is now trivial task to extend the analysis to @xmath253 ( @xmath347 ) dimensions .
the number of the kk - modes for @xmath347 is given by @xmath348_k } \cdot n_k(\mu)\ ] ] for @xmath65 .
we summarize the number of elements among sets of kk - fields in tables  [ tab1 ] ,  [ tab2 ] and [ tab3 ] for @xmath349 , respectively .
.@xmath127_k}$ ] for @xmath256 ( @xmath2 ) .
the column shows @xmath127_k}$ ] for @xmath350 ( gauge bosons ) , @xmath351 ( gauge scalars ) , @xmath352 ( dirac fermions ) , and @xmath353 ( higgs ) .
[ tab1 ] [ cols="^,^,^",options="header " , ]
we may take yet another choice for evaluating the vacuum polarization function , instead of the truncated kk effective theory  @xcite . in this appendix
, we consider the proper - time ( pt ) scheme as well as the @xmath13-scheme in the truncated kk effective theory .
the effective charge is defined by @xmath354 where @xmath355 is the bare coupling and @xmath356 denotes the vacuum polarization function , @xmath357 the effective charge is closely related to physical quantities such as scattering amplitudes . through the effective coupling
, we determine the relation of gauge couplings calculated in the two regularization schemes .
we consider bulk gauge theories with bulk fermions and bulk scalars . in four dimensions , it is straightforward to calculate the contributions of fermions and scalars : @xmath358 for @xmath117 pieces of dirac fermions of the fundamental representation , and @xmath359 for @xmath360 pieces of complex scalars of the fundamental representation , respectively , where @xmath116 and @xmath361 is the mass of fermions and scalars . for bulk fields ,
we perform to sum over their kk modes . on the other hand
, it is slightly complicated to compute the loop correction of massive gauge bosons within the 4-dimensional theory .
instead higgsing gauge theory in four dimensions , we directly calculate the loop correction in extra dimensions . in order to keep the gauge invariance , we use the background field method with the feynman gauge . taking effects of compactification into account
, we replace the loop integral in @xmath42 dimensions to @xmath362 with the @xmath42-dimensional ( dimensionful ) coupling @xmath71 and the 4-dimensional one @xmath70 .
we here decomposed the loop momentum @xmath363 to the 4-dimensional one @xmath364 and the discrete one @xmath365 in extra @xmath59 dimensions , @xmath366 where masses of kk modes @xmath367 are given by @xmath368 of course , the external momentum @xmath369 does not have the extra momentum , @xmath370 .
we thus obtain contributions of gauge bosons and gauge scalars as @xmath371 ,     \label{pibare - g}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath372 respectively .
we separate the vacuum polarization function to the contributions of zero modes @xmath373 , which corresponds to the sm corrections , and kk modes @xmath374 : @xmath375 with @xmath376 and @xmath377      we briefly review the results in refs .  @xcite . in the truncated kk
effective theory , we calculate the vacuum polarization function by using the dimensional regularization ( taking the loop integral to @xmath378 instead of @xmath379 ) : @xmath380 , \\   ( 4\pi)^2 \pi_{gs}^{\overline{\rm ms}}(-q^2;m^2 ) & = &     - \frac{\delta}{2 } \ ,
i_s(-q^2;m^2 ) , \\   ( 4\pi)^2 \pi_f^{\overline{\rm
ms}}(-q^2;m^2 ) & = & - 8 t_r \ , n_f \ ,     i_f(-q^2;m^2 ) , \\
( 4\pi)^2 \pi_h^{\overline{\rm ms}}(-q^2;m^2 ) & = & - t_r \ , n_h \ ,
i_s(-q^2;m^2 ) , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where we defined @xmath381^{-\epsilon } , \\
i_s(-q^2;m^2 ) & \equiv & \frac{\gamma(\epsilon)}{(4\pi)^{-\epsilon } }    \int_0 ^ 1 dx \ , ( 2x-1)^2 \left[\,m^2-x(1-x)q^2\,\right]^{-\epsilon},\\ i_f(-q^2;m^2 ) & \equiv & \frac{\gamma(\epsilon)}{(4\pi)^{-\epsilon } }    \int_0 ^ 1 dx \ , x(1-x ) \left[\,m^2-x(1-x)q^2\,\right]^{-\epsilon } .\end{aligned}\ ] ] we renormalize the bare coupling in the @xmath13-scheme : @xmath382 with the rge coefficient of zero mode @xmath383 , @xmath384 and that of kk modes @xmath385 , @xmath386 where @xmath387 denote the total number of kk modes for gauge bosons , gauge scalars , fermions , and scalars ( composite higgs fields ) below @xmath51 , respectively .
we then find the effective coupling in the truncated effective theory based on the @xmath13-scheme , @xmath388 with @xmath389 where we defined @xmath390    + \frac{\delta}{2 } \
i_s^r(-q^2;m^2 ) \nonumber \\    & & \quad     + 8 t_r \ , n_f \ , i_f^r(-q^2;m^2 )    + t_r \ , n_h \ , i_s^r(-q^2;m^2 ) , \\
i_g^r ( -q^2;m^2 ) & \equiv &     \int_0 ^ 1 dx \ln \left(\,1-x(1-x)\frac{q^2}{m^2}\,\right ) , \\ i_s^r ( -q^2;m^2 ) & \equiv &     \int_0 ^ 1 dx \ , ( 2x-1)^2     \ln \left(\,1-x(1-x)\frac{q^2}{m^2}\,\right ) , \\ i_f^r ( -q^2;m^2 ) & \equiv &     \int_0 ^ 1 dx \ , x(1-x ) \ln \left(\,1-x(1-x)\frac{q^2}{m^2}\,\right),\end{aligned}\ ] ] and obtained the constant term @xmath391    we identify the mass of the heaviest kk state to the cutoff @xmath11 . in the limit of @xmath392
, we easily find @xmath393 with @xmath394 where @xmath395 is replaced by @xmath396 for @xmath256 .
since we can not take so large value to the cutoff @xmath11 due to the landau pole for @xmath15 , the effects of the finite parts  ( [ ms - q ] ) summing over kk modes are negligible in a certain low energy scale , comparing with the finite term arising from zero modes , @xmath397 .
numerically , we find the finite sums for qcd at @xmath398 , @xmath399 for @xmath128 , respectively , where we took @xmath175 tev , @xmath400 gev , @xmath401 for @xmath128 , respectively .
of course , the effects of eq .
( [ ms - q ] ) get smaller for larger values of @xmath28 .    at the zero momentum ,
the effects of finite terms via kk modes come to be completely negligible thanks to eq .
( [ ms - q ] ) .
we thus identify @xmath402 to the sm value .
we also find the @xmath403-function , @xmath404      we calculate the vacuum polarization function in the pt - scheme . using the trick with the pt - parameter @xmath405 , @xmath406 and performing the momentum integral , @xmath407 we can rewrite vacuum polarization functions in eqs .
( [ pibare - f ] ) , ( [ pibare - s ] ) , ( [ pibare - g ] ) , and ( [ pibare - gs ] ) as follows : @xmath408 , \\
( 4\pi)^2 \pi_{gs}^{\rm
pt}(q_e^2;m^2 ) & = &     - \frac{\delta}{2 } \ , c_a \ , j_s(-q^2;m^2 ) , \\
( 4\pi)^2 \pi_f^{\rm pt}(q_e^2;m^2 ) & = & - 8 t_r \ , n_f \ ,
j_f(q_e^2;m^2 ) , \\    ( 4\pi)^2 \pi_h^{\rm
pt}(q_e^2;m^2 ) & = & - t_r \ , n_h \ ,
j_s(q_e^2;m^2 ) , \end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath409 , \\    j_s(q_e^2;m^2)&= \int_0 ^ 1 dx \int_0^\infty    \frac{dt}{t } ( 2x-1)^2 \exp[-t(x(1-x)q_e^2+m^2 ) ] , \\    j_f(q_e^2;m^2)&= \int_0 ^ 1 dx \int_0^\infty    \frac{dt}{t } x(1-x ) \exp[-t(x(1-x)q_e^2+m^2)],\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the suffix @xmath410 denotes the euclidean momentum .
since the pt - integral diverges near @xmath411 , we regularize the integral with the cutoff @xmath11 : @xmath412    we first calculate @xmath373 . performing the feynman parameter integration ,
we obtain @xmath413,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we used the confluent hypergeometric function @xmath414 and the relation between the confluent hypergeometric function and the error function , @xmath415 here , we note the kummer s transformation , @xmath416 and the recurrence formula , @xmath417 =    -\frac{1}{c}{}_1f_1(1,c+1;-t ) .\ ] ] since the behaviors of @xmath414 around @xmath418 and @xmath419 are given by @xmath420 and @xmath421 respectively , we separate the pt - integration to the singular part and finite ones : @xmath422 \nonumber \\ & & -     \int_0^{\frac{r q_e^2}{4\lambda^2 } } \frac{dt}{t }      \left[\,{}_1f_1(1,c ;- t)-1\,\right ] +     \int_1^\infty \frac{dt}{t}{}_1f_1(1,c ;- t ) , \\   & = & -\ln \frac{r q_e^2}{4\lambda^2 } + \frac{1}{c }     \int_0^{\frac{r q_e^2}{4\lambda^2 } } dt\ ,     { } _ 1f_1(1,1+c ;- t ) \nonumber \\ & & -\frac{1}{c }     \int_0 ^ 1 dt\ , { } _ 1f_1(1,1+c ;- t ) +      \int_1^\infty \frac{dt}{t}{}_1f_1(1,c ;- t ) .\end{aligned}\ ] ] noting the integration of the confluent hypergeometric function , @xmath423 we find @xmath424 with @xmath425 we can read @xmath426 from the above results : @xmath427 with @xmath428 here , we note @xmath429 thanks to @xmath430 .    now , we study the contributions of the kk modes
. we can perform the summation over all kk states by using the jacobi @xmath125 function , @xmath431 which has the remarkable property , @xmath432 we then obtain the summation of the vacuum polarization via kk modes : @xmath433\exp[-tx(1-x)q_e^2]k_g(t ) \nonumber \\ & & -   \frac{\delta}{2 } \cdot \frac{c_a}{(4\pi)^2 }   \int_0 ^ 1dx\int_{r\lambda^{-2}}^\infty\frac{dt}{t}\ ,   ( 2x-1)^2 \exp[-tx(1-x)q_e^2]k_{gs}(t ) \nonumber \\ & & -    8t_r \cdot \frac{n_f}{(4\pi)^2 }   \int_0 ^ 1dx\int_{r\lambda^{-2}}^\infty\frac{dt}{t}\ ,   x(1-x ) \exp[-tx(1-x)q_e^2]k_f ( t ) \nonumber \\ & & -    t_r \cdot \frac{n_h}{(4\pi)^2 }   \int_0 ^ 1dx\int_{r\lambda^{-2}}^\infty\frac{dt}{t}\ ,   ( 2x-1)^2 \exp[-tx(1-x)q_e^2]k_h ( t ) , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where we defined @xmath124_1 }    \left[\,\frac{1}{2}(\vartheta_3 - 1)\,\right ] +     { \cal n}_i^{\delta,[n]_2 } \left[\,\frac{1}{2}(\vartheta_3 - 1)\,\right]^2 +     { \cal n}_i^{\delta,[n]_3 } \left[\,\frac{1}{2}(\vartheta_3 - 1)\,\right]^3 +     \cdots\ ] ] with @xmath65 and @xmath126 .
the values of @xmath127_k}$ ] are given in table  [ tab1][tab3 ] .
combining with eq .
( [ pt0 ] ) , we obtain the effective coupling as @xmath434 with @xmath435 where we neglected the corrections of the order of @xmath436 . in the limit of @xmath437
, we find @xmath438 where @xmath395 is replaced by @xmath396 for @xmath256 .
we regard the bare coupling @xmath355 as a quantity defined at the cutoff @xmath11 : @xmath439 since the effective coupling @xmath106 should not depend on the cutoff @xmath11 at the zero momentum @xmath440 , we can deduce the `` @xmath403-function '' for @xmath149 : @xmath441 with the `` rge coefficient '' @xmath442 , @xmath443 matching the rge for the @xmath13-coupling with @xmath444 in the limit of @xmath445 , we easily find  @xcite @xmath446 we identify the effective coupling at the zero momentum calculated in the pt - scheme to the sm one with @xmath447 : @xmath448      although the coefficients of @xmath449 in the @xmath13-scheme and the pt - scheme are accidentally identical in @xmath451 , they have generally the regularization dependence and their difference is the factor @xmath452 in eq .
( [ pt - q2 ] ) .
y. nambu , enrico fermi institute report no .
89 - 08 , 1989 ; in _ proceedings of the 1989 workshop on dynamical symmetry breaking _ , edited by t. muta and k. yamawaki ( nagoya university , nagoya , japan , 1990 ) .
k.  yamawaki , in _ proceedings of the 14th symposium on theoretical physics `` dynamical symmetry breaking and effective field theory '' _ , cheju island , korea , july 21 - 26 , 1995 , ed .
j.  e.  kim ( minumsa pub .
co. , korea , 1996 ) p.43 - 86 , [ arxiv : hep - ph/9603293 ] .
c.  t.  hill , and e.  h.  simmons , phys .
* 381 * , 235 ( 2003 ) , [ arxiv : hep - ph/0203079 ] .
n.  arkani - hamed , h.  c.  cheng , b.  a.  dobrescu and l.  j.  hall , phys . rev . *
d62 * , 096006 ( 2000 ) , [ arxiv : hep - ph/0006238 ]
. m.  hashimoto , m.  tanabashi and k.  yamawaki , phys .
rev . * d64 * , 056003 ( 2001 ) , [ arxiv : hep - ph/0010260 ] .
k.  agashe , jhep * 0105 * , 017 ( 2001 ) , [ arxiv : hep - ph/0012182 ] .
v.  gusynin , m.  hashimoto , m.  tanabashi and k.  yamawaki , phys . rev . *
d65 * , 116008 ( 2002 ) , [ arxiv : hep - ph/0201106 ] .
h.  abe , k.  fukazawa , and t.  inagaki , prog .
* 107 * , 1047 ( 2002 ) , [ arxiv : hep - ph/0107125 ] ; h.  abe , and t.  inagaki , phys . rev . *
d66 * , 085001 ( 2002 ) , [ arxiv : hep - ph/0206282 ] .
s.  raby , s.  dimopoulos and l.  susskind , nucl .
b169 * , 373 ( 1980 ) .
m.  hashimoto , m.  tanabashi , and k.  yamawaki , in _ proceedings of the 2002 international workshop on strong coupling gauge theories and effective field theories ( scgt 02 ) _ , nagoya , japan , dec 10 - 13 , 2002 , ed .
m.  harada , y.  kikukawa , and k.  yamawaki ( world scientific pub .
co. , singapore 2003 ) , p.291297 , [ arxiv : hep - ph/0304109 ] .
a.  manohar and h.  georgi , nucl .
b234 * , 189 ( 1984 ) .
b.  a.  dobrescu and c.  t.  hill , phys .
lett . * 81 * , 2634 ( 1998 ) , [ arxiv : hep - ph/9712319 ] ; r.  s.  chivukula , b.  a.  dobrescu , h.  georgi and c.  t.  hill , phys .
* d59 * , 075003 ( 1999 ) , [ arxiv : hep - ph/9809470 ] . see also h - j .
he , c.  t.  hill and t.  m.  p.  tait , phys . rev .
* d65 * , 055006 ( 2002 ) , [ arxiv : hep - ph/0108041 ] .
h. georgi , e. h. simmons , and a. g. cohen , phys .
b236 * , 183 ( 1990 ) ; e. h. simmons , phys . rev . *
d42 * , 2933 ( 1990 ) ; t. kugo , and m. g. mitchard , phys . lett . *
b282 * , 162 ( 1992 ) .
b.  pendleton and g.  g.  ross , phys .
b98 * , 291 ( 1981 ) .
w.  a.  bardeen , c.  n.  leung and s.  t.  love , phys .
lett . * 56 * , 1230 ( 1986 ) ; c.  n.  leung , s.  t.  love and w.  a.  bardeen , nucl .
b * 273 * , 649 ( 1986 ) .
kondo , s. shuto and k. yamawaki , mod .
. lett . * a6 * , 3385 ( 1991 ) .        p.  nath and m.  yamaguchi , phys
* d60 * , 116004 ( 1999 ) , [ arxiv : hep - ph/9902323 ] . n.  arkani - hamed , a.  g.  cohen and h.  georgi , phys .
lett . * 86 * , 4757 ( 2001 ) , [ arxiv : hep - th/0104005 ] ; c.  t.  hill , s.  pokorski and j.  wang , phys
. rev . * d64 * , 105005 ( 2001 ) , [ arxiv : hep - th/0104035 ] .