arxiv: v3 [hep-ph] 24 Jun 2013

Transcription

1 Eective Theory o a Light Dilaton Zackaria Chacko and Rashmish K. Mishra Maryland Center or Fundamental Physics, Department o Physics, University o Maryland, College Park, MD, arxiv: v3 hep-ph] 24 Jun 203 We consider scenarios where strong conormal dynamics constitutes the ultraviolet completion o the physics that drives electroweak symmetry breaking. We show that in theories where the operator responsible or the breaking o conormal symmetry is close to marginal at the breaking scale, the dilaton mass can naturally lie below the scale o the strong dynamics. However, in general this condition is not satisied in the scenarios o interest or electroweak symmetry breaking, and so the presence o a light dilaton in these theories is associated with mild tuning. We construct the eective theory o the light dilaton in this ramework, and determine the orm o its couplings to Standard Model states. We show that corrections to the orm o the dilaton interactions arising rom conormal symmetry violating eects are suppressed by the square o the ratio o the dilaton mass to the strong coupling scale, and are under good theoretical control. These corrections are generally subleading, except in the case o dilaton couplings to marginal operators, when symmetry violating eects can sometimes dominate. We investigate the phenomenological implications o these results or models o technicolor, and or models o the Higgs as a pseudo-nambu-goldstone boson, that involve strong conormal dynamics in the ultraviolet. I. INTRODUCTION Although the Standard Model (SM) has experienced more than 30 years o experimental successes, the nature o the dynamics that underlies the electroweak phase transition has remained a mystery. Although several promising theories have been put orward, each aces its own challenges and conclusive experimental evidence that could settle the issue one way or the other has been lacking. The recent discovery o a new particle with mass close to 25 GeV and properties similar to that o the SM Higgs boson, 2] will help resolve this issue. The simplest possibility, and the one avored by precision electroweak tests, is that the new particle is indeed the SM Higgs. In this case the remaining challenge is to explain the stability o the weak scale under radiative corrections, the hierarchy problem. I, however, electroweak symmetry is broken by strong dynamics, as in technicolor models 3, 4], or a review see 5], there is no immediate understanding o the origin o the new particle, or an explanation o why its properties are similar to that o the SM Higgs. The simplest technicolor models remain disavored by precision tests 6 8], and there is no immediate understanding o the absence o the new contributions to lavor changing neutral currents that are expected to be generated by the mechanism that gives the SM quarks and leptons their masses. There have long been good reasons to think that strong conormal dynamics may play a role in electroweak symmetry breaking, irrespective o the existence o a light Higgs. In theories o technicolor, i the strong dynamics that breaks electroweak symmetry is conormal in the ultraviolet, the operators that give rise to the ermion masses can have a large anomalous dimension. This ramework is used in conormal technicolor models 9] to generate a natural separation o the lavor scale rom the electroweak scale, allowing the experimental limits on lavor violation to be satisied. (This approach to the lavor problem was irst proposed in the context o walking technicolor 0 3], which is closely related to conormal technicolor.) In theories with a light Higgs, one class o promising solutions to the hierarchy problem are those where the SM Higgs emerges as the pseudo-nambu-goldstone boson o a global symmetry that is broken by strong dynamics 4 6]. This class o theories includes little Higgs models 7 9], and twin Higgs models 20, 2]. I the ultraviolet physics involves strong conormal dynamics, the lavor scale can again be separated rom the electroweak scale, allowing new contributions to lavor violating processes to be small enough to satisy the existing constraints. In theories where an exact conormal symmetry is spontaneously broken, the low energy eective theory below the breaking scale contains a massless scalar, the dilaton, which may be thought o as the Nambu- Goldstone boson (NGB) associated with the breaking o conormal symmetry 23 26]. The orm o the dilaton couplings is ixed by the requirement that conormal symmetry be realized nonlinearly, and so this ramework is extremely predictive. Several authors have studied the couplings o a light dilaton in the context o theories o electroweak symmetry breaking 27 29]. Remarkably, the interactions o a dilaton with the SM ields are very similar to those o the SM Higgs 28]. This can be traced to the act that at the classical level the SM has an approximate conormal symmetry which is spontaneously broken by the VEV o the Higgs, so that the Higgs can be understood as a dilaton in this limit. However, in the class o theories o interest or electroweak symmetry breaking, conormal symmetry is expected to be explicitly violated by operators that grow in the inrared to become strong at the breaking scale. Thereore, in general, there is no reason to expect a light dilaton in the low energy eective theory. In this paper we consider scenarios where strong conormal dynamics constitutes the ultraviolet completion o

2 the physics that drives electroweak symmetry breaking. Following the ramework outlined in 30], we show that in theories where the operator responsible or breaking conormal symmetry is marginal at the breaking scale, the dilaton mass can naturally lie below the scale o the strong dynamics. However, in general this condition is not satisied by the theories o interest or electroweak symmetry breaking, and so the presence o a light dilaton in these theories is associated with mild tuning. We construct the eective theory o the light dilaton in this ramework, and determine the orm o its couplings to SM states. We show that corrections to the orm o the dilaton interactions arising rom conormal symmetry violating eects are suppressed by the square o the ratio o the dilaton mass to the strong coupling scale, and are under good theoretical control. These corrections are subleading, except in the case o dilaton couplings to marginal operators, when they can sometimes dominate. These results have important implications or our understanding o electroweak symmetry breaking. One possibility is that the new particle that has been observed close to 25 GeV is not the SM Higgs, but instead a dilaton that emerges rom a strongly interacting conormal sector that breaks electroweak symmetry dynamically. In act, several papers that interpret the 25 GeV resonance as a dilaton have already appeared in the literature 32 35]. In such a scenario an understanding o the general orm o the dilaton couplings, including conormal symmetry violating eects, is crucial to distinguishing it rom the SM Higgs 22]. Another possibility is that the new particle which has been observed is indeed the SM Higgs, which arises as the pseudo-nambu-goldstone boson (pngb) o an approximate global symmetry that is broken by strong conormal dynamics. Our analysis shows that in such a scenario, there may be an additional light scalar in the low energy eective theory beyond the SM Higgs whose couplings to the SM ields can be predicted. The AdS/CFT correspondence 36 39] can be used to relate Randall-Sundrum models in warped extra dimensions 40] to strongly coupled conormal ield theories in the large N limit. In this way, extra dimensional realizations o technicolor 4] and o the Higgs as a pngb 42] have been obtained. In the correspondence, the radion in the Randall-Sundrum model is identiied with the dilaton 27]. Radion stabilization using the Goldberger- Wise mechanism 43] can be understood as a stable minimum or the dilaton potential being generated by eects which explicitly violate conormal symmetry 27]. Several authors have studied the couplings o the radion in Randall-Sundrum models, both in the case when the SM ields are localized to a brane 43 46] and in the case when they are in the bulk 47, 48]. We ind excellent A closely related result has been obtained in the context o walking gauge theories using current algebraic methods 3]. agreement between these results and ours in the regime when the large N approximation is valid. II. EFFECTIVE THEORY OF A DILATON In this section we construct the eective theory or the dilaton, incorporating conormal symmetry violating eects, and show that i the operator that breaks conormal symmetry is marginal at the breaking scale, the dilaton can naturally be light. The iteen parameter conormal group extends the ten parameter Poincare group to include scale transormations and special conormal transormations. While it has long been conjectured that any Poincare invariant, unitary theory that realizes scale invariance linearly will also respect conormal symmetry 49], there exists no complete proo. The validity o this conjecture has been the subject o considerable interest in the recent literature 50], 5], 52]. Consider a theory where conormal invariance is spontaneously broken. Then the low energy eective theory contains a dilaton ield σ(x), which can be thought o as the NGB associated with the breaking o scale invariance 23 26]. The additional our NGBs associated with the breaking o the special conormal symmetry can be identiied with the derivatives o the dilaton, rather than as independent propagating ields. Below the breaking scale the symmetry is realized non-linearly, with the dilaton undergoing a shit σ(x) σ (x ) = σ(x)+ω under the scale transormation x µ x µ = e ω x µ. Here is the scale associated with the breaking o conormal symmetry. For the purpose o writing interactions o the dilaton it is convenient to deine the object χ(x) = e σ(x)/ () which transorms linearly under scale transormations. Speciically, under the scale transormation x µ x µ = e ω x µ, χ(x) transorms as a conormal compensator χ(x) χ (x ) = e ω χ(x). (2) The low energy eective theory or the dilaton will in general include all terms consistent with this transormation, but with some additional restrictions and relations among their coeicients rom the requirement that the theory be invariant not just under scale transormations, but under the ull conormal group. These restrictions will not aect our discussion in any signiicant way, and so operationally we shall only require that the action or χ be scale invariant. In writing down the Lagrangian or the dilaton, it is necessary to take into account the implicit breaking o conormal invariance associated with the regulator. Since the theory in the ultraviolet possesses exact conormal invariance, this eect is o course completely spurious. However, it has the consequence that the Lagrangian or the dilaton is not maniestly scale invariant. It is 2

3 only at the quantum level, when eects o the regulator are incorporated, that conormal invariance is realized. This complicates the problem o inding the orm o the eective theory. Perhaps the simplest way to incorporate the eect o the regulator is to begin in a ramework where the renormalization scale µ χ is itsel a unction o χ, µ χ = µˆχ, where ˆχ = χ/. In such a ramework, correlation unctions can be obtained rom the eective action, which has exactly the same orm as in a conventional renormalization scheme, but with µ replaced by µ χ 53]. Such a choice o renormalization scheme has the advantage that the action or χ is then maniestly scale invariant and thereore easy to write down. Starting rom this action, the orm o the Lagrangian in a more conventional scheme where the renormalization scale is independent o χ can be determined. This is the approach we shall ollow. A. Eective Theory in the Limit o Exact Conormal Invariance We begin by constructing the eective theory or the dilaton in the case when conormal invariance is exact, and eects that explicitly violate conormal symmetry are absent. In a ramework where the renormalization scale µ χ is proportional to χ, the low energy eective action or the dilaton will be maniestly scale invariant. This symmetry allows derivative terms in the Lagrangian o the orm 2 Z µχ µ χ+ c χ 4 ( µχ µ χ) (3) For reasons that will become clear, we postpone rescaling Z to one. Crucially, however, in contrast to the eective theory o the NGB o spontaneously broken global symmetry, a non-derivative term in the potential is also allowed, V(χ) = Z2 κ 0 χ 4. (4) The existence o this non-derivative term indicates that even in the absence o eects that explicitly violate conormal symmetry, there is a preerred value o = χ. This is in sharp contrast to the case o a spontaneously broken global symmetry, where all points on the vacuum maniold are identical. In order to determine the location o the minimum, the eective potential must be obtained and minimized. In order to bring the theory into a standard orm, we now go over to a scheme in which the renormalization scale µ is independent o χ. In order to clariy the discussion, we irst illustrate the procedure at one loop. We will obtain the Lagrangian or the low energy eective theory to this order, and use it to determine the eective potential and dilaton mass. We will then show how the result generalizes to arbitrary numbers o loops. It will be convenient to work in a mass-independent scheme, such as MS. We label Z and the coupling constants c, Z 2 κ 0 etc. by g i, where i is an index. The g i are all dimensionless.. One Loop Analysis At one loop, going over to a scheme where the renormalization scale µ is independent o χ is equivalent to evolving the parameters g i etc. rom µ χ to µ using the renormalization group. Running the renormalization group leads to g i evolving into g i, where g i = g i dg ( ) i χ d logµ log. (5) To keep the analysis simple we ocus on the case when all the g i are zero, except Z and Z 2 κ 0. Then to this order, the potential or the dilaton takes the orm { ( )} V(χ) = Z 2 κ 0 d(z2 κ 0 ) χ χ 4 d logµ log. (6) Note that the potential is no longer maniestly scale invariant. In this theory at one loop order there is no wave unction renormalization, d logz d logµ = 2γ = 0. (7) The derivative o κ 0 can be evaluated in perturbation theory, leading to dκ 0 d logµ = 3κ2 0 6π 2. (8) Ater using these expressions to replace the terms involving derivatives in the Lagrangian, we may choose to rescale Z to one. The conormal invariance o this Lagrangian can be made more transparent in a basis where all the mass scales are expressed as powers o the renormalization scale µ, and all coupling constants are dimensionless. In such a basis, the dilaton kinetic term can be written as 2 Z µ χ µ χ, (9) where Z is given to one loop order by Z = Z dz ( ) µ d logµ log. (0) Z, which is equal to Z since wave unction renormalization vanishes to this order, is a renormalization group invariant and does not change with µ. At this point we choose to rescale Z to one. Inthisbasisthepotentialorthedilatontakesthe orm { ( )} V(χ) = κ 0 d(z2 κ 0 ) χ χ 4 d logµ log µ. () 3

4 where κ 0 is given by ( ) κ 0 = Z 2 κ 0 d(z2 κ 0 ) µ d logµ log. (2) Note that κ 0, like Z, is independent o the renormalization scale µ to this loop order, as dictated by conormal invariance. The next step is to determine the one loop eective potential. This can be computed rom Eq. (6), ater rescaling Z to one, using the Coleman-Weinberg ormula, V e = V ± ( 64π 2 Mi 4 log M2 i µ 2 ). (3) 2 i Here the sum is overthe ield dependent masses o all the statesinthetheory,thesignbeingpositiveorbosonsand negative or ermions. This leads to V e (χ cl ) = { κ 0 3κ2 0 32π 2 log ( ) µ 2 2 κ χ 4 cl 0 2]} 2 (4) The conormal invariance o the theory can be made clear by rewriting this in terms o κ 0. We obtain V e (χ cl ) = ˆκ 0 χ4 cl. (5) where ˆκ 0, given to one loop order by ( ) ˆκ 0 = κ 0 + 3κ2 0 κ0 32π 2 log ] 2 2, (6) is independent o the renormalization scale µ, as required by conormal invariance. Minimizing this eective potential, we ind that the conormal symmetry breaking scale χ = is driven to zero, corresponding to unbroken conormal symmetry, i the sign o ˆκ 0 is positive. Alternatively, i ˆκ 0 is negative, is driven to ininite values, and conormal symmetry is never realized. Only i the value o ˆκ 0 is identically zero does the low energy eective theory possess a stable minimum, andamasslessdilaton. Ingeneralsetting ˆκ 0 = 0 is associated with tuning, since there is no symmetry reason to expect it to vanish. 2. General Analysis Although this result was obtained based on a one loop analysis, we now show that the same conclusion holds at arbitrary loop order. It can be veriied that by replacing g i in the theory renormalized at µ χ by g i, where g i is given by g i = g i + ( ) n n! d n g i d logµ n log ( )] n χ, (7) we obtain a Lagrangian which is conormally invariant when renormalized at µ. The higher terms in this series are to be determined sel-consistently order by order in perturbation theory. The potential or the dilaton now takes the orm { ( ) n V(χ) = n! n=0 d n (Z 2 κ 0 ) d logµ n log ( )] } n χ χ 4. (8) As expected, the Lagrangian does not possess a maniestly scale invariant orm. We can choose to rescale Z to one ater the derivatives have been evaluated, but not beore. The conormal invariance o the theory can be made more transparent by going over to a basis where all the mass scales are expressed as powers o the renormalization scale µ, and all coupling constants are dimensionless. In such a basis, Z, the coeicient o the dilaton kinetic term, is given by Z = ( ) m m=0 m! d m Z d logµ m log ( )] m µ. (9) Z does not change with the renormalization scale µ, and we rescale it to one without loss o generality. The potential or the dilaton takes the orm { ( ) n ( )] } n χ χ V(χ) = κ 0,n log 4 n! µ, (20) n=0 where κ 0,n is given by κ 0,n = ( ) m m=0 m! d m+n (Z 2 κ 0 ) d logµ m+n ( )] m µ log. (2) The beta unctions o all the κ 0,n vanish by construction. This is a relection o the conormal invariance o this theory. Going orward, we denote the κ 0,n and all the other coupling constants in this basis by ḡ i, where i is an index. The beta unctions o all the ḡ i vanish as a consequence o conormal invariance. The next step is to obtain the eective potential V e (χ cl ) or this theory, and to minimize it. How is V e (χ cl ) to be determined? This time, rather than work directly rom the Lagrangian, we employ the Callan- Symanzik equation or the eective potential, { µ µ +β i γχ cl ḡ i χ cl } V e (χ cl,ḡ i,µ) = 0. (22) For a conormal theory, the beta unctions β i (ḡ i ) vanish. The anomalous dimension γ o χ, which represents the dierence between its mass and scaling dimensions, is also zero. Then the Callan-Symanzik equation reduces to µ µ V e(χ cl,ḡ i,µ) = 0. (23) The eective potential is then constrained by dimensional analysis to be o the especially simple orm V e (χ cl ) = ˆκ 0 χ4 cl, (24) 4

5 where ˆκ 0 is a constant that depends on the ḡ i, but is independent o µ. We see that the theory does not have a stable minimum unless ˆκ 0 = 0, when the potential vanishes identically. The results o our one loop analysis are thereore conirmed. B. Incorporating Conormal Symmetry Violating Eects The situation changes i eects that explicitly break conormal symmetry are present in the theory. Consider an operator O(x) o scaling dimension added to the Lagrangian, L = L CFT +λ O O(x). (25) Under x x = e ω x, the operator O(x) O (x ) = e ω O(x). It is convenient to deine the dimensionless coupling constant ˆλ O = λ O µ 4. We choose to normalize the operator O(x) such that ˆλ O o order one corresponds to conormal symmetry violation becoming strong, so that it can no longer be treated as a perturbation on the conormal dynamics. This implies that i ˆλ O, it satisies the renormalization group equation d logˆλ O d logµ = (4 ). (26) We wish to determine the eect o this deormation on the ormothe lowenergyeective theory. In orderto do this, note that or small ˆλ O the action remains ormally invariant under x x = e ω x provided λ O is taken to be a spurion that transorms as λ O λ O = e (4 )ω λ O. (27) This implies that the eective theory or χ will also respect conormal symmetry i λ O is treated as a spurion that transorms in this way. In determining the low energy eective theory or the dilaton it is againsimplest to begin in a rameworkwhere the renormalization scale depends on the conormal compensator as µ χ = µˆχ, since the Lagrangian is then maniestly scale invariant. The potential or the dilaton is then V(χ) = Z2 κ 0 χ 4 Z 2 nǫ/2 κ n λ n O χ (4 nǫ), (28) where ǫ is deined as 4. The next step is to go over to a more conventional scheme where the renormalization scale µ is independent o χ.. One Loop Analysis In order to clariy the discussion we will irst work in the limit that ˆλ O at scales µ o order, and determine the vacuum structure and the dilaton mass to one loop order. We will then relax the assumption on ˆλ O and also generalize the result to an arbitrary number o loops. Keeping only the leading order term in ˆλ O, the potential or the dilaton Eq. (28) simpliies to V(χ) = Z2 κ 0 χ 4 Z /2 κ λ O χ, (29) where κ 0 and κ are coupling constants. We can go over to a scheme where the renormalization scale is independent o χ by using the renormalization group. The potential then becomes, to one loop order, V(χ) = { Z 2 κ 0 d(z2 κ 0 ) ( χ d logµ log { Z /2 κ d(z /2 κ ) d logµ log )} χ 4 (30) ( )} χ λo χ. To keep the analysis simple we ocus on the case when all the g i are zero, except Z, Z 2 κ 0 and Z /2 κ. This theory does not experience wave unction renormalization at one loop, and thereore the derivatives o Z in the expression above vanish. The derivatives o κ 0 and κ can be evaluated in perturbation theory, leading to dκ 0 d logµ = 3κ2 0 6π 2 dκ d logµ = ( )κ κ 0 32π 2. (3) In order to understand how conormal symmetry is realized in this ramework it is useul to go over to a basis where all mass scales are expressed in terms o the renormalization scale µ and all coupling constants are dimensionless. In this basis, Z, the coeicient o the dilaton kinetic term is given by Z = Z dz d logµ log ( ) µ. (32) Z is a renormalization group invariant. The absence o wave unction renormalization in this theory at one loop means that Z = Z to this order. We choose to rescale Z to one. The potential or the dilaton takes the orm { ( )} V(χ) = κ 0 d(z2 κ 0 ) χ χ 4 d logµ log { κ d(z /2 κ ) d logµ log µ ( χ µ Here κ 0 and κ are related to Z, κ 0 and κ as ( ) κ 0 = Z 2 κ 0 d(z2 κ 0 ) µ d logµ log κ = Z /2 κ d(z /2 κ ) d logµ log )} λo χ. (33) ( ) µ. (34) 5

6 Note that λ O is being treated as a spurion, not as a coupling constant, and thereore continues to carry mass dimension 4, equal to its spurious scaling dimension. The beta unctions o κ 0 and κ can be seen to vanish to one loop order by construction. This is a consequence o the (spurious) conormal symmetry. The next step is to obtain the eective potential or the theory at one loop order. We again use Eq. (3), ater rescaling Z to one, leading to V e (χ cl ) = κ 0 χ4 cl κ λ Oχ cl + (35) κ 0 3κ0 32π 2χ4 cl λ ] O ( )κ 64π 2 χ cl Σ ], 2 where Σ is deined as κ0 Σ = log 2 κ ] ( )λ Oχ 4 cl. (36) The next step is to ind the minimum o this potential, and to obtain the dilaton mass. For simplicity, we neglect the loop suppressed terms on the second line o Eq. (35). Wewilllaterveriythatincludingthemdoesnotalterour conclusions. The tree level potential admits a minimum when ( 4) = 4κ 0 κ λ O. (37) The dilaton mass squared at the minimum, to this order, is given by m 2 σ = κ λ O (4 ) 2 = 4 κ 0 (4 )2. (38) I the conormal ield theory is weakly coupled, the parameters κ 0,κ (4π) 2, ˆλ O λ O ( 4), and the eective theory o the dilaton we have obtained is valid. Corrections to Eqs. (37) and (38) rom the loop suppressed terms in Eq. (35) can be seen to be small in this limit, and we are justiied in neglecting them. However, i the conormal ield theory under consideration is strongly coupled, as in the theories o interest or electroweak symmetry breaking, the eective theory o the dilaton is also expected to be strongly coupled at the scale Λ 4π. Then, in the absence o tuning, the parameters κ 0 and κ are in general o order (4π) 2 and, as is clear rom Eq. (37), the assumption that ˆλ O is small at the scale is no longer sel consistent. Furthermore, it ollows rom Eq. (38) that the mass o the dilaton is o order the cuto Λ and so it is no longeralight state. The loop suppressed terms we have neglected in obtaining Eq. (37) cannot alter this result. The conclusion to be drawn rom this is that i a strongly coupled conormal ield theory is explicitly broken by a relevant operator that becomes strong in the inrared, in general there is no reason to expect a light dilaton. However, a closer study o Eq. (38) reveals a very interesting eature. I the operator O is very close to marginal so that (4 ), then even or κ 0 (4π) 2 the dilaton mass is parametrically smaller than the strong coupling scale Λ. It is straightorward to veriy that this conclusion remains true even when the loop suppressed termsin Eq.(35) areincludedinthe analysis. Thiswould suggest that in a scenario where the operator that breaks conormal symmetry is close to marginal, there is indeed a light dilaton in the eective theory. The dilaton mass depends onhowclosethe dimension oo is tothe exactly marginal value o 4, scaling as m σ 4. This is potentially a very important result. In a large class o theories o interest or electroweak symmetry breaking, the operator that breaks conormal symmetry iscloseto marginalin ordertoensurethat there isalarge hierarchy between the lavor scale (or Planck scale) and the electroweak scale. This result would imply that in all such theories the low energy spectrum includes a light dilaton! Unortunately, the steps leading up to Eq. (38) assumed that ˆλ O. As is clear rom Eq. (37), this assumption is not valid in the strong coupling limit. In order to validate this conclusion, we must show that the result continues to hold when this assumption is relaxed, and is valid beyond one loop. 2. General Analysis Extending the analysis beyond small λ O involves incorporating two distinct eects. Firstly, i the coupling constantλ O isnotsmall, thescalingbehaviorotheoperator O(x) is expected to receive corrections, and Eq. (26) is in general no longer valid. Instead, the renormalization group equation takes on the more general orm d logˆλ O d logµ = g(ˆλ O ), (39) where g(ˆλ O ) is in general a polynomial in ˆλ O, g(ˆλ O ) = c nˆλn O, (40) n=0 that can be approximated by the lowest order term g(ˆλ O ) = c 0 = (4 ) (4) only in the limit when ˆλ O is small. In general, in a strongly coupled conormal ield theory, the coeicients c n, n are expected to be o order one. (This is consistent with the expectation that all the terms in the series should become comparable when ˆλ O is o order one.) This eect must be taken into account. Secondly, i ˆλ O is not small, the higher order terms in Eq. (28) are signiicant and must be included in our analysis. While both these eects are important, the irst has a particularly striking impact on the orm o the low energy eective theory. The reason is that in this case, the leading order eect which is o order (4 ) receives 6

7 corrections that begin at order ˆλ O. Since in the theories o interest (4 ), these corrections can potentially become large even beore ˆλ O reaches its strong coupling value, signiicantly impacting the inal result. This is most easily seen by going beyond the leading term in Eq. (40), while neglecting the higher order corrections in ˆλ O that arise rom other sources. Such an approximation is valid provided ˆλ O at the breaking scale is signiicantly below its strong coupling value, ˆλO. We are interested in the region o parameter space where (4 ) < c ˆλO, so that the corrections to the leading order termineq.(40)dominate. Wepostponeamorecomplete discussion that includes all the higher order eects in ˆλ O till later in this section. Integrating Eq (39), it ollows that G(ˆλ O )µ is a renormalization group invariant, where G(ˆλ O ) = exp ( dˆλo ˆλ O g(ˆλ O ) ). (42) We can make the theory deined by Eq. (25) ormally invariant under scale transormations by promoting ˆλ O to a spurion that transorms as ˆλ O (µ) ˆλ O (µ) = ˆλ O (µe ω ) (43) under x x = e ω x. Under this transormation, G(ˆλ O )µ G(ˆλ O)µ = e ω G(ˆλ O )µ. (44) The Lagrangian or the low energy eective theory must be invariant under this spurious scale transormation. Furthermore, it is restricted to terms involving positive integer powers o the spurion ˆλ O. Using Eq. (42), it ollows that the combination λ O, deined as λ O = ˆλ ] O +g(ˆλ O )logµ, (45) is invariant under ininitesimal changes in the renormalization scale µ. It then ollows rom Eq. (44) that the object Ω(ˆλ O,χ/µ), deined as ( )] Ω(ˆλ O,χ/µ) = ˆλ χ O g(ˆλ O )log, (46) µ is invariant under ininitesimal (spurious) scale transormations. Furthermore, Ω is a polynomial in ˆλ O. Lagrangians that are invariant under ininitesimal (spurious) scale transormations can be constructed using Ω. For values o µ close to the symmetry breaking scale and g(ˆλ O ), we can approximate Ω as Ω(ˆλ O,χ/µ) = ˆλ O ( χ µ ) g(ˆλo). (47) To leading order in Ω the potential or χ takes the orm V(χ) = χ4 ( κ0 κ Ω ). (48) From this potential the dilaton mass at the minimum can be obtained as m 2 σ = 4 κ 0 g(ˆλ O ) 2 (49) This expression or the dilaton mass is very similar to that in Eq. (38), except in one important respect. We now see that it is the scaling behavior o the operator O at the breaking scale that determines the dilaton mass, rather than the scaling dimension o O in the ar ultraviolet. In particular, this implies that or the dilaton o a spontaneously broken approximate conormal symmetry to be naturally light, it is not suicient that (4 ), so that the operator that breaks the symmetry is close to marginal in the ar ultraviolet. Instead, the requirement is that this operator be close to marginal at the symmetry breaking scale, so that g(ˆλ O ) at µ =. Since in a general strongly coupled theory, ˆλ O, and thereore g(ˆλ O ), are expected to be o order one at the breaking scale, this condition is not expected to be satisied in the scenarios o interest or electroweak symmetry breaking (or which 4 suices to address the lavor problem). This suggests that the existence o a light dilaton in these theories is associated with tuning (or more precisely, a coincidence problem). However, since the consistency o this analysis requires that ˆλ O, it remains to show that including the higher order corrections in ˆλ O that we have so ar neglected, and which may be signiicant, does not aect this conclusion. The next step is obtain the eective theory or the dilaton, consistently including all the higher order eects in ˆλ O. At this point it is convenient to separate out the corrections to the scaling behavior o O rom these eects. Recalling that ǫ is deined as (4 ), we write g(ˆλ O ) = ǫ+δg(ˆλ O ), (50) where δg(ˆλ O ) represents the higher order corrections. In order to simpliy our analysis we will consider the two cases δg(ˆλ O ) < ǫ and δg(ˆλ O ) > ǫ, corresponding to the corrections to the scaling dimension o the operator O being smaller or larger than ǫ at the breaking scale, separately. Limit When the Corrections Are Small We irst consider the case when δg(ˆλ O ) < ǫ at the breaking scale. In this limit we can simpliy Eq. (42) by perorming a binomial expansion, Then dˆλ O ˆλ O g(ˆλ O ) = dˆλo ǫˆλ O G(ˆλ O ) = ˆλ /ǫ O exp δg(ˆλ O ) ǫ +... ]. (5) ] δg(ˆλ O ) dˆλ O ǫ 2ˆλ (52) O 7

8 It ollows rom this that G(ˆλ O ), deined as G(ˆλ O ) = can be expanded as a polynomial in ˆλ O, G(ˆλ O ) = ˆλ O G(ˆλ O )] ǫ, (53) ] δg(ˆλ O ) dˆλ O +... ǫˆλ O. (54) Then the object G(ˆλ O )µ ǫ, which we denote by λ O, is a renormalization group invariant that can be expanded as a polynomial in ˆλ O. It ollows rom Eq. (44) that the theory above the breaking scale is ormally invariant under scale transormations, x x = e ω x, provided λ O is taken to be a spurion that transorms as λ O λ O = e ǫω λ O. (55) The eective theory or χ will then respect conormal symmetry i λ O is treated as a spurion that transorms in this way. Note that this spurious transormation is identical to that o λ O, Eq. (27), in the case o small ˆλ O. Consider the object Ω(λ O,χ), deined as Ω(λ O,χ) = λ O χ ǫ. (56) By construction, Ω is invariant under (spurious) scale transormations. Furthermore, in the regime δg(ˆλ O ) < ǫ, it can be expanded as a polynomial in ˆλ O. Ω is useul in constructing the general Lagrangian or the low energy theory. In a ramework where the renormalization scale depends on the conormal compensator as µ χ = µˆχ, the potential or χ takes the orm V(χ) = Z2 χ 4 κ 0 κ n Ω n (λ O, ] Zχ). (57) This simpliies to the orm o Eq (28), but with λ O replaced by λ O, V(χ) = Z2 κ 0 χ 4 Z 2 nǫ/2 κ n λ n O χ(4 nǫ). (58) Going over to a more conventional scheme where the renormalization scale µ is independent o χ, V(χ) becomes m=0 m=0 ( ) m m! ( ) m d m (Z 2 κ 0 ) d logµ m m! log d m (Z 2 nǫ/2 κ n ) d logµ m ( )] m χ χ 4 log (59) ( )] m χ λ n Oχ 4 nǫ. We can choose to rescale Z to one, but only ater the derivatives above have been evaluated. The (spurious) conormal symmetry o the theory can bemademoretransparentinabasiswhereallmassscales are expressed in terms o the renormalization scale µ and all coupling constants are dimensionless. In this basis, Z, the coeicient o the dilaton kinetic term, is given by Z = ( ) m m=0 m! d m Z d logµ m log ( )] m µ. (60) Z is independent o the renormalization scale µ. We againchoosetosetittoone. Thepotentialorthedilaton now takes the orm V(χ) = ( ) m κ 0,m log m! ( ) m κ n,m log m! m=0 m=0 ( )] m χ χ 4 µ ( χ µ )] m λ n O χ4 nǫ where the couplings constants κ n,m are given by ( ) r r=0 r! d m+r (Z 2 nǫ/2 κ n ) d logµ m+r (6) ( )] r µ log. (62) Thebetaunctionsoallthe κ n,m vanishbyconstruction, relecting the (spurious) conormal invariance o the theory. The inal step is to determine the orm o the eective potential. We will again use the Callan-Symanzik equation or the eective potential, { µ } µ +β i γ φα φ α V e (φ α,ḡ i,µ) = 0. (63) ḡ i φ α Here the index α runs over the ields in the theory, namely χ cl and ˆλ O. The beta unctions β i (ḡ i ) vanish as a consequence o the (spurious) conormal symmetry, as does the anomalous dimension o χ. The anomalous dimension o ˆλ O is g(ˆλ O ), the dierence between its scaling dimension and mass dimension. Then the Callan- Symanzik equation reduces to { µ } µ g(ˆλ O )ˆλ O V e (χ cl,ˆλ O,ḡ i,µ) = 0. (64) ˆλ O Makingachangeo variablerom ˆλ O to λ O, this becomes simply µ µ V e(χ cl,λ O,ḡ i,µ) = 0. (65) Dimensional analysis constrains the solution to be o the orm V e (χ cl ) = χ4 cl ˆκ0 F(λ O χ ǫ cl )], (66) where ˆκ 0 is a constant that depends on the couplings ḡ i but not on λ O. The orm o the unction F(Ω) cannot be determined rom symmetry considerations alone, but depends on the dynamics o the conormal ield theory under consideration, and on the operator O. For values o 8

9 Ωlessthanonebyaactoroatleastaew,corresponding to ˆλ O being below its strong coupling value at the symmetry breaking scale, F(Ω) can be computed in perturbation theory. In general it is not a polynomial in Ω, as can be seen rom Eq. (35). Minimizing the eective potential we ind the condition that determines the symmetry breaking scale, 4ˆκ 0 4F(λ O ǫ )+ǫλ O ǫ F (λ O ǫ ) = 0. (67) The dilaton mass squared depends on the second derivative o the eective potential at the minimum, which is given by 2 V e σ 2 = 2{ 4ǫλ O ǫ F (λ O ǫ ) }. (68) Here we are neglecting eects o order ǫ 2. We see rom this that even at strong coupling, corresponding to ˆκ 0 (4π) 2, itheunction F(Ω)satisiesthe conditionf(ω) > ΩF (Ω) at the minimum, the dilaton mass is suppressed byaactoro ǫrelativetothestrongcouplingscale4π, and thereore remains light. The question is whether this condition on the unction F(Ω) is indeed satisied in a general strongly coupled conormal ield theory, or an arbitrary marginal operator O. Unortunately, in the absence o additional inormation about the unction F(Ω), we cannot establish such a conclusion. At the minimum, the value o Ω is equal to that o ˆλ O evaluated at the symmetry breaking scale. For Ω o order one, corresponding to ˆλ O close to its strong coupling value, we expect that F(Ω) is o order (4π) 2, but its unctional orm is completely unknown. However, there exists a class o strongly coupled theories where the condition F(Ω) ΩF (Ω) is satisied, and the dilaton is light. In the region o parameter space where ˆλ O and ˆκ 0 are below their strong coupling values, the orm o the unction F(Ω) can be determined rom perturbation theory. In this regime it is dominated by the term linear in Ω in Eq. (57), since the other terms are loop suppressed or higher order in ˆλ O. Now, we expect that there exist strongly coupled conormal ield theories where the parameter ˆκ 0 is below its natural strong coupling value by a actor o order a ew. This is quite natural, requiring at most mild tuning. From the minimization condition it ollows that in such theories, symmetry breaking is realized or values o F(Ω) that correspond to values o Ω, and thereore ˆλ O, that lie below their strong coupling values by roughly the same actor. Since F(Ω) is linear in Ω in this regime, the condition F(Ω) ΩF (Ω) is satisied at the minimum. Thereoreinthisclassotheoriestheconclusionm σ ǫ is valid, and the dilaton is light. Since this analysis is restricted to the region o parameter space where δg(ˆλ O ) < ǫ, it is important to understand the circumstances under which this condition is satisied. One possibility is that O is a protected operator, so that all the coeicients c n in the polynomial expansion o g(ˆλ O ) are o order ǫ. The operator O is then close to marginal or any value o ˆλ O. An example is a theory where the parameter ˆλ O corresponds to a ixed line, while the parameter ǫ is associated with the coeicient o an operator that is very close to marginal (or all ˆλO ) and which lits the ixed line. However, theories that admit such protected operators are clearly rather special. There is no reason to expect the condition c n < ǫ to be satisied by an arbitrary marginal operator O in a general conormal ield theory. Another possibility is that the parameter ˆκ 0 lies signiicantly below its natural strong coupling value so that symmetry breaking is realized or values o ˆλ O less than ǫ. The condition δg(ˆλ O ) < ǫ can then be satisied. Sinceinthis regimef(ω) isdominatedbythe termlinear in Ω, F(Ω) (4π) 2 Ω (4π) 2ˆλ O, it ollows rom Eq. (67) that the condition ˆλ O < ǫ translates into ˆκ 0 /(4π) 2 < ǫ. It ollows rom Eq. (68) and the minimization condition Eq. (67) that in this regime the dilaton mass scales as ˆκ0 ǫ, and thereore receives additional suppression rom the act that ˆκ 0 is small. However, small values o ˆκ 0 are associated with tuning, and so this condition is not expected to be satisied in a general conormal ield theory. However, in the case o small hierarchies, such as between the lavor scale and the weak scale, values o ǫ as large as /5 can still serve to address the problem. It ollows rom this that in such a theory, a dilaton mass a actoro5below the strongcoupling scalecan be realized or ˆκ 0 a actor o 5 below its natural strong coupling value. Since the tuning scales with ˆκ 0, this theory need only be tuned at the level o part in 5 (20%). This is to be contrasted with the case o a (non-pngb) composite scalar o the same mass, which is tuned at the level o part in 25 (4%). We see that although this scenario is tuned, the tuning is mild, scaling with the mass o the dilaton rather than the square o its mass. Limit When Corrections Are Large We now turn our attention to the case when the corrections to the scaling behavior o O are large in the neighborhood o the breaking scale, so that δg(ˆλ O ) > ǫ. For simplicity, we will work in the limit that the renormalization group evolution o log ˆλ O close to the breaking scale is dominated by the term linear in ˆλ O so that d logˆλ O d logµ = c ˆλ O, (69) Integratingthis equation we ind that G(ˆλ O ) is now given by ( ) G(ˆλ O ) = exp. (70) c ˆλO Since G(ˆλ O )µ is a renormalization group invariant, it 9

10 ollows that λ O, now deined as λ O = ˆλ O c ˆλO logµ (7) is also a renormalization group invariant. Once ˆλ O is promoted to a spurion as in Eq (43), the object Ω(λ O,χ) = λ O +c λ O logχ (72) is invariant under (spurious) scale transormations. Furthermore, at scalesµcloseto χ =, it can be expanded asapolynomialin ˆλ O. TheLagrangianorthelowenergy eective theory can be constructed using Ω. In a scheme where the renormalization scale is proportional to χ, µ χ = µˆχ, the potential takes the orm V(χ) = Z2 χ 4 κ 0 κ n Ω n (λ O, ] Zχ). (73) It is straightorward to go over to a scheme where the renormalization scale µ is independent o χ, and where all mass parameters in the Lagrangian are expressed as powers o µ. As beore, the dimensionless coupling constants ḡ i in such a scheme are independent o the renormalization scale µ. The eective potential or the low energy eective theory can once again be determined rom the Callan- Symanzik equation, Eq (63). The anomalous dimension o χ vanishes while that o the spurion ˆλ O is given by g(ˆλ O ) = c ˆλO. As a consequence the Callan-Symanzik equation reduces to { µ µ c ˆλ 2 O ˆλ O } V e (χ cl,ˆλ O,ḡ i,µ) = 0. (74) Making the change o variable rom ˆλ O to λ O, this simpliies to µ µ V e(χ cl,λ O,ḡ i,µ) = 0. (75) Dimensional analysis constrains the solution to be o the orm V e (χ cl ) = χ4 cl{ˆκ0 FΩ(λ O,χ cl )] }. (76) The orm o the unction FΩ] cannot be determined rom symmetry considerations alone, but depends on the dynamics o the conormal ield theory under consideration, andontheoperatoro. ForvaluesoΩlessthanonebyat least a actor o a ew, corresponding to ˆλ O being below its strong coupling value at the symmetry breaking scale, F(Ω) can be computed in perturbation theory. Minimizing the eective potential we obtain the condition that determines, 4ˆκ 0 4FΩ]+c Ω 2 F Ω] = 0. (77) The dilaton mass squared depends on the second derivative o the eective potential at the minimum, which can be determined as 2 V e σ 2 = c 2 Ω 2 (4 2c Ω)F c Ω 2 F ]. (78) Once again we ocus on theories where the parameter ˆκ 0 is below its natural strong coupling value by some actor, which could be as small as a ew. In such theories, symmetry breaking is realized or values o ˆλ O that are below its strong coupling value. In this limit the orm o the eective potential can be determined in perturbation theory, and F(Ω) is dominated by the term linear in Ω. Then at the minimum the condition FΩ] ΩF Ω] is satisied. Noting that at the minimum the value o Ω is equal to that o ˆλ O at the scale, it ollows rom Eq.(77)andEq.(78)thatthedilatonmasssquaredscales as m 2 σ c ˆλOˆκ 0. We see rom this that the dilaton mass depends on the scaling behavior o the operator O at the symmetry breaking scale, and thereore on the value o c ˆλO. Since the minimization condition Eq. (77) relates Ω (and thereore ˆλ O at the breaking scale) to ˆκ 0, or c o order its natural value o one we have that the dilaton mass squared scales as ˆκ 2 0. This suggests that or ˆκ 0 o order its natural strong coupling value the dilaton mass lies near the cuto o the theory, and it is not a light state. It ollows rom this that in general, the spectrum o a conormal ield theory broken by an arbitrary marginal operator that grows strong in the inrared does not include a light dilaton. The low energy eective theory will however contain a light dilaton i the parameter ˆκ 0 lies signiicantly below its natural strong coupling value. In general, this involves tuning, since this condition is not expected to be satisied in an arbitrary conormal ield theory. However, the tuning is mild, scaling with ˆκ 0 and thereore as the mass o the dilaton, so that a dilaton that lies a actor o 5 below the strong coupling scale is only tuned at the level o part in 5 (20 %). It ollows rom this discussion that in strongly coupled theories where an approximate conormal symmetry is spontaneously broken, the low energy spectrum includes a light dilaton i the operator that breaks the symmetry is close to marginal at the breaking scale. This condition is in general not expected to be satisied by the theories o interest or electroweak symmetry breaking, and so the presence o a light dilaton in these theories is associated with tuning. However, the tuning is mild, scaling as the mass o the dilaton rather than as the square o its mass. III. DILATON INTERACTIONS IN A CONFORMAL SM In the limit that conormal invariance is exact, the orm o the dilaton interactions with SM ields in the low energy eective theory is ixed by the requirement that 0

11 the symmetry be realized nonlinearly. However, in the scenario o interest, we expect signiicant deviations rom exact conormal invariance because eects associated with the operator O that violate the symmetry are large at the breaking scale. It is crucial to understand the size othese eects, andtheextent towhichthe predictionso the theory with exact conormal invariance are aected. In this section, we consider a scenario where the SM gauge bosons and matter ields are all composites o a strongly interacting conormal sector that breaks electroweak symmetry dynamically, and there is no light Higgs. The AdS/CFT correspondence relates this scenario to Higgsless Randall-Sundrum models where the SM matter and gauge ields are localized on the inrared brane. The couplings o the dilaton to the SM ields in such a ramework have been determined 28], and agree with earlier results or the couplings o the radion to brane-localized ields in Randall-Sundrum models 43 46]. Several authors have studied the question o distinguishing the dilaton rom the Higgs at the LHC in such a scenario 54 56], see also 57]. We will study the corrections to the dilaton couplings in this scenario when eects associated with the operator O that explicitly violates conormal symmetry are incorporated. We begin by considering the dilaton couplings to the W and Z gauge bosons. We choose to work in a basis where we write all gauge kinetic terms in the orm 4g 2F µνf µν. (79) In the absence o conormal symmetry violating eects, the couplings o the dilaton to the W are such as to compensate or the breaking o conormal invariance by the gauge boson mass term. In unitary gauge these take the orm ( ) 2 χ m 2 W g 2 W+ µ W µ (80) in the Lagrangian. Here m W is the W gauge boson mass. Expanding the compensator χ = e σ/ out in terms o σ to leading order in inverse powers o, we ind or the dilaton couplings 2 σ m 2 W g 2 W+ µ W µ. (8) Next we consider the corrections to the dilaton couplings when conormal symmetry violating eects are included. We will ocus on the case when the corrections to the scaling behavior o O are small, so that δg(ˆλ O ) is less than ǫ at the breaking scale. We will later argue that the same conclusions are obtained in the limit when δg(ˆλ O ) is greater than ǫ. The presence o conormal symmetry violating eects allows additional two derivative terms in the dilaton action, + α χ,n λ n O ] 2 χ( nǫ) µ χ µ χ. (82) The dimensionless parameters α χ,n depend both on the operator O and the speciic conormal ield theory under consideration. They are expected to be o order one. These new terms contribute to the dilaton kinetic term, which now becomes 2 + α χ,n λ n O ] ( nǫ) µ σ µ σ. (83) When σ is rescaled to make the dilaton kinetic term canonical, we see that the eective impact o these terms is to alter the eective value o in Eq. (8), while leaving the orm o the interaction unchanged. More generally, it ollows that corrections to the dilaton kinetic term rom conormal symmetry violating eects do not alter the orm o the dilaton couplings to the SM ields. Instead, to leading order in σ/, they lead to a universal rescaling in the eective value o, leaving the relative strengths o the dilaton couplings to the various SM ields unchanged. Since to the order we are working this eect can be entirely absorbed into the parameter, we will not consider it urther. The gauge kinetic term also receives corrections rom conormal symmetry violating eects. It now takes the orm 4ĝ 2 + α W,n λ n O ]F χ( nǫ) µν F µν, (84) where the parameters α W,n are dimensionless. They are expected to be o order one. The physical gauge coupling is now given by g 2 = ĝ 2 ] + α W,n λ n O ( nǫ). (85) Expanding Eq. (84) to leading order in σ we obtain ǫ c W 4g 2 σ F µνf µν, (86) where the dimensionless parameter c W is given by c W = nα W,nλ n O ( nǫ) + α W,nλ n. (87) O ( nǫ) Inastronglycoupledtheory c W isexpected tobe oorder λ O ǫ, which is the value o ˆλ O at the breaking scale. It ollows that this correction to the dilaton coupling is suppressed by ǫˆλ O, which is o order m 2 σ/λ 2. Conormal symmetry violating eects also modiy the gauge boson mass term, Eq. (80), which now becomes ( ) ] 2 χ + β W,n λ n O χ ( nǫ) ˆm 2 W ĝ 2 W+ µ W µ. (88) Here ˆm W isthew bosonmassintheunperturbedtheory, and the dimensionless parameters β W,n are o order one.

12 Expanding this out in terms o σ(x), we see that to leading order in inverse powers o, the dilaton couples as σ m 2 W g 2 2+c Wǫ]W µ + W µ. (89) Here m 2 W is again the physical W boson mass, m 2 W = ˆm 2 + β W,nλ n ] O ( nǫ) W + α W,nλ n, (90) O ( nǫ) while the dimensionless parameter c W is given by c W = nβ W,nλ n O ( nǫ) + β W,nλ n. (9) O ( nǫ) In the strong coupling limit, c W is expected to be o order λ O ǫ ˆλ O. We see that the eect o the conormal symmetry violating term is to correct the dilaton couplings by order ǫˆλ O m 2 σ/λ 2. Iweinsteadconsiderthelimitwhen δg(ˆλ O ) isgreater than ǫ at the symmetry breaking scale, the analysis is very similar. The only signiicant dierence is that λ O χ ǫ ineqs.(82), (84)and(88)isreplacedbyΩ(λ O,χ), which in this limit is given by Ω(λ O,χ) = λ O +c λ O logχ. (92) Following exactly the same sequence o steps we ind that the corrections to the dilaton couplings have the sameorm, butarenowsuppressedbyc Ω 2 (λ O,)rather than ǫλ O ǫ. However, this new suppression actor is o order m 2 σ/λ 2, exactly as beore. We see that the corrections have the same orm and are o the same size as in the case δg(ˆλ O ) < ǫ. It is not diicult to veriy that this result is quite general. Thereore, in the remainder o the paper we will limit our analysis to the case δg(ˆλ O ) < ǫ, with the understanding that the same generalconclusionsapplytothecase δg(ˆλ O ) > ǫaswell. Next we turn our attention to the dilaton couplings to the massless gauge bosons o the SM, the photon and the gluon. Unlike the W and Z, the Lagrangian or these particles does not break conormal invariance at the classicallevel, only at the quantum level. At one loop the renormalization group equations or the corresponding gauge couplings are o the orm d d logµ g 2 = b < 8π 2 (93) where the constant b < = /3 or electromagnetism and+7orcolor,atscalesabovethemassothetop. This implies that under ininitesimal scale transormations x x = e ω x, the operator F µν F µν transorms as F µν F µν (x) F µν F µν (x ), where ( F µν F µν (x ) = e 4ω + b ) < 8π 2g2 ω F µν F µν (x) (94) I conormal symmetry is to be realized nonlinearly, the couplings o the dilaton must be such as to compensate or this. It is then easy to see that the dilaton couplings in the Lagrangian must take the orm b < 32π 2log ( χ ) F µν F µν. (95) Expanding this out in terms o σ(x), to leading order in inverse powers o, we ind or the dilaton coupling b < 32π 2 σ F µνf µν. (96) It ollows rom this that the dilaton couples much more weaklytothe masslessgaugebosonsthantothew orthe Z. The reason is that the gauge interactions correspond to marginal operators in the low energy eective theory, while mass terms or the gauge bosons are relevant operators. Since the dilaton couples as a conormal compensator, it is to be expected that its couplings to massless gauge bosons are suppressed. We now consider corrections to this interaction arising rom conormal symmetry violating eects. These allow direct couplings o the compensator χ to the gauge kinetic term o the orm 4ĝ 2 + α A,n λ n O ]F χ( nǫ) µν F µν. (97) The physical gauge coupling is now given by ] g 2 = ĝ 2 + α A,n λ n O ( nǫ). (98) Expanding Eq. (97) in terms o σ, and combining with Eq. (96) we ind or the dilaton coupling to massless gauge bosons σ b< 32π 2 + c ] A 4g 2ǫ F µν F µν. (99) Here the dimensionless coupling c A is given by c A = nα A,nλ n O ( nǫ) + α A,nλ n. (00) O ( nǫ) Inastronglycoupledtheorytheparameterc A isexpected to be o order λ O ǫ ˆλ O at the scale. We see rom this that the corrections to the dilaton coupling arising rom symmetry breaking eects are suppressed by m 2 σ/λ 2. Nevertheless, the act that the leading order eect is loop suppressed and thereore small implies that the symmetry breaking contribution may dominate. Finally we consider the couplings o the dilaton to the SM ermions. In the limit that conormal symmetry is exact, the coupling o the dilaton is such as to compensate or the spontaneous breaking o conormal 2