删除或更新信息,请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

Novel theoretical constraints for color-octet scalar models

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01

Li Cheng 1,,
, Otto Eberhardt 2,,
, Christopher W. Murphy 3,,
,
Corresponding author: Li Cheng, clmamuphy@sina.cn
Corresponding author: Otto Eberhardt, otto.eberhardt@ific.uv.es
Corresponding author: Christopher W. Murphy, cmurphy@bnl.gov
1.Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics, Beijing 100094, China
2.Instituto de Física Corpuscular, Universitat de València – CSIC, Apt. Correus 22085, E-46071 València, Spain
3.Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, 11973, USA
Received Date:2019-04-16
Available Online:2019-09-01
Abstract:We study the theoretical constraints on a model whose scalar sector contains one color octet and one or two color singlet SU(2)L doublets. To ensure unitarity of the theory, we constrain the parameters of the scalar potential for the first time at the next-to-leading order in perturbation theory. Moreover, we derive new conditions guaranteeing the stability of the potential. We employ the HEPfit package to extract viable parameter regions at the electroweak scale and test the stability of the renormalization group evolution up to the multi-TeV region. Furthermore, we set upper limits on the scalar mass splittings. All results are given for both cases with and without a second scalar color singlet.

HTML

--> --> -->
1.Introduction
The discovery of the 125-GeV Higgs boson at the LHC [1, 2] exemplifies the success of the standard model (SM). Considering experimental precision, the possibility of physics beyond the SM (BSM) is not excluded yet, however, given the null results of the direct search, any BSM physics that is discovered is likely to be more exotic in nature. It is therefore important to determine to what extent different BSM scenarios are viable. Inspired by supersymmetric models, the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model (2HDM) that adds another Higgs doublet is one of the simplest and most commonly studied extensions of the SM. Manohar and Wise (MW), starting from the principle of minimal flavor violation (MFV), proposed an alternative model [3]. It follows from MFV that the scalar sector can only have two representations, the color-singlet and color-octet. Therefore, the authors constructed an extension of the SM by adding a color-octet electroweak doublet scalar. The phenomenology of the model has been studied in detail [417], including aspects such as production of scalars, the lower limit of the scalar masses, and possible constraints on the parameter space.
Combining the above motivations, Refs. [18, 19] recently proposed a new model containing aspects of both the MW model and 2HDM. In particular, the scalar sector of the model in consideration consists of two color-singlet electroweak doublets, $ \Phi_{1, 2} $, and one color-octet electroweak doublet, S. The MW model is the limiting case with $ \Phi_2 \to 0 $, whereas the 2HDM is recovered in the limit $ S \to 0 $. Because of the existence of these two limiting cases, we will refer to this model as the 2HDMW. The inclusive character of the 2HDMW model is capable of explaining new physics and is compatible with the established experimental observations. For example, this represents a viable model for LHC physics in terms of h-signal strengths, since they are not necessarily affected at the tree-level. It is also suggested that the 2HDMW can emerge naturally from GUT theories [2022]. Therefore, the 2HDMW depicts one of the possible physics at the low scale upon breaking down of the more general symmetry. In the meantime, CP violating phases are introduced to the scalar sector in its most general formulation.
Ref. [18] investigated tree-level constraints on the 2HDMW arising from symmetries and perturbative unitarity. A study of LHC phenomenology was also performed, which found that the color-octet scalar added to the 2HDM could produce large corrections to the one-loop couplings of the Higgs boson to two gluons or photons. The study presented in Ref. [19] derived the one-loop beta functions for the scalar couplings in the 2HDMW, and the evolution of the renormalization group equations (RGEs) was then used to place upper limits on the parameters of the model. Similar practices were applied in studies of the the SM [23, 24], MW model [14], and the 2HDM [2527]. The parameter space was further constrained in Ref. [19] by requiring no Landau poles (LPs) below a certain high-energy scale Λ, the scalar potential being stable and the perturbative unitarity being satisfied at all scales below Λ. The perturbative unitarity constraints imposed on the model in Refs. [18, 19] are of the leading order (LO), and a considerable region in the parameter space survives.
Although instructive, the preceding studies on constraints imposed on the 2HDMW are not yet comprehensive. It is a reasonable expectation that supplementing corrections at higher orders can result in noticeable modifications to the surviving parameter space. However, the behavior of higher order corrections is usually complicated. There is no simple answer to whether their impact is to tighten or relax the viable ranges of couplings. In this study, we utilize the generic tool provided by Refs. [2830] to explore these perturbative unitarity bounds at next-to-leading order (NLO) and first impose them on color-octet scalar. However, the positivity conditions are only known for 2HDM. Taking an additional color-octet into account, one should reconsider the scalar potential as a whole and secure the existence of the global minimum. Completely solving this problem is extremely challenging. This study is also the first work to expand the set of positivity conditions to both MW and 2HDMW models.
Generally, this work focuses on theoretical constraints of the 2HDMW. An investigation of experimental bounds of the model will be performed in a future study. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: the 2HDMW model is defined in Sec. 2. The theoretical constraints are explained in Sec. 3. Followingly, our results for the surviving parameter space are presented in Sec. 4. Concluding remarks are provided in Sec. 5.
2.The model
As stated above, the scalar sector of the model consists of two color-singlet electroweak doublets $ \Phi_{1, 2} $, and one color-octet electroweak doublet S. The most general renormalizable potential of the scalar sector is [18, 31]:
$ \begin{split}V_{\rm{gen}}\! =& m_{11}^2\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_1^{\phantom{\dagger}} \! +\! m_{22}^2\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}} \! -\! m_{12}^2 \left( \Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}} \!+\!\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_1^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right) \! +\! \displaystyle\frac{1}{2} \lambda_1\left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_1^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right)^2 \\& + \displaystyle\frac{1}{2} \lambda_2\left(\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right)^2 \! +\! \lambda_3 \left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_1^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right) \left(\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right) \! +\! \lambda_4 \left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right) \left(\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_1^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right) \\&+ \displaystyle\frac{1}{2} \left[ \lambda_5 \left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right)^2 + {\rm h.c.} \right] + \left[ \lambda_6 \left( \Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_1^{\phantom{\dagger}} \right) \left( \Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}} \right) \right. \\& \left. +\lambda_7 \left( \Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}} \right) \left( \Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}} \right) + {\rm h.c.} \right] + 2 m_S^2 {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger i} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) \\ & + \mu_1 {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger i} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) + \mu_2 {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger i} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) \\ & + \mu_3 {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger i} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) \left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) + \mu_4 {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger i} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) \left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) \\ & + \mu_5 {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) \left(S^{\dagger i} S^{\dagger j}\right) + \mu_6 {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j S^{\dagger j} S^{\dagger i}\right) \\ & + \nu_1 \Phi_1^{\dagger i}\Phi_{1i}^{\phantom{\dagger}} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) + \nu_2 \Phi_1^{\dagger i}\Phi_{1j}^{\phantom{\dagger}} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) \\ & +\left[ \nu_3 \Phi_1^{\dagger i}\Phi_1^{\dagger j} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) +\nu_4 \Phi_1^{\dagger i} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) \right. \\ &\left.+\nu_5 \Phi_1^{\dagger i} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) + {\rm h.c.}\right] + \omega_1 \Phi_2^{\dagger i}\Phi_{2i}^{\phantom{\dagger}} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) \\ & + \omega_2 \Phi_2^{\dagger i}\Phi_{2j}^{\phantom{\dagger}} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) +\left[ \omega_3 \Phi_2^{\dagger i}\Phi_2^{\dagger j} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right)\right. \\ &\left.+\omega_4 \Phi_2^{\dagger i} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) +\omega_5 \Phi_2^{\dagger i} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) +{\rm h.c.}\right] \\ &+\left[ \kappa_1 \Phi_1^{\dagger i} \Phi_{2i}^{\phantom{\dagger}} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) +\kappa_2 \Phi_1^{\dagger i} \Phi_{2j}^{\phantom{\dagger}} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) \right. \\ &\left.+\kappa_3 \Phi_1^{\dagger i} \Phi_2^{\dagger j} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) +{\rm h.c.}\right] . \end{split} $
(1)
All interactions between S, $ \Phi_1 $, and $ \Phi_2 $ and the self-interactions are included. In Eq. (1), we use i, j as $ SU(2) $ indices, and the notation $ S_i = S_i^A T^A $, where A is color index. The trace is taken over the color indices.
The physical parameters of this model are the masses of the $ \Phi_1 $ and $ \Phi_2 $ fields, which we denote in the 2HDM as $ m_h $, $ m_H $, and $ m_A $ for the neutral bosons and as $ m_{H^\pm} $ for the charged Higgs particles, as well as the octet masses $ m_R $, $ m_I $ and $ m_{S^\pm} $ for the neutral scalar, neutral pseudoscalar, and the charged octet scalar of the MW model. Moreover, we refer to the two angles of the diagonalization of the mass matrix in the 2HDM sector as α and β, according to the conventions in the literature.
We apply the following conditions to reduce the number of parameters in the scalar potential and the Yukawa potential, defined below in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3), respectively.
● We restrict the 2HDM sector to be CP-conserving.
● Custodial symmetry [3234]: We adopt the less restrictive method discussed in [18]. The mass degeneracies $ m_{H^\pm} = m_A $ and $ m_{S^\pm} = m_I $ result from custodial symmetry.
● We impose a $ \mathbb{Z}_2 $ symmetry, which is only softly broken by quadratic terms. This prevents tree level flavor changing neutral currents (FCNCs), and further reduces the number of free parameters. The charge assignments we consider are given in Table 1. The original MW study was motivated by the principle of minimal flavor violation [35, 36]. This is in contrast with our approach of imposing $ \mathbb{Z}_2 $ symmetry, which is motivated by the practicality of reducing the number of parameters in the scalar potential while still maintaining some ability to generate flavor effects.
Φ1Φ2SURDRQL
Type I?+???+
Type IIu?+??++
Type IId?++?++


Table1.$\mathbb{Z}_2$ charge assignments in the 2HDMW that forbid tree level FCNCs. In type IIu (IId), the color-octet scalar S only interacts with up-type (down-type) quarks.

The scalar potential of the model with the aforementioned imposed constraints reads:
$ \begin{split}V_{{\rm {fit}}} =& m_{11}^2\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_1^{\phantom{\dagger}} \!+\! m_{22}^2\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}} \!-\! m_{12}^2 \left( \Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}} \!+\!\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_1^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right) \! +\! \displaystyle\frac{1}{2} \lambda_1\left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_1^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right)^2 \\& + \displaystyle\frac{1}{2} \lambda_2\left(\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right)^2 + \lambda_3 \left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_1^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right) \left(\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right) + \displaystyle\frac{1}{2} \lambda_4 \left[ \left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_2^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right) \right. \\ & \left. + \left(\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_1^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right) \right]^2 + 2 m_S^2 {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger i} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) + \mu_1 \left[ {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger i} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) \right. \\ & \left.+{\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger i} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) +2 {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j S^{\dagger j} S^{\dagger i}\right) \right] \\ & + \mu_3 {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger i} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) \left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) + \mu_4 \left[ {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger i} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) \left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) \right. \\ & \left. + {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) \left(S^{\dagger i} S^{\dagger j}\right) \right] + \nu_1 \Phi_1^{\dagger i}\Phi_{1i}^{\phantom{\dagger}} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) \\ &+\displaystyle\frac{1}{2} \nu_2 \left[ \Phi_1^{\dagger i}\Phi_{1j}^{\phantom{\dagger}} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) +\Phi_1^{\dagger i}\Phi_1^{\dagger j} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) + {\rm h.c.}\right] \\ & +\nu_4 \left[ \Phi_1^{\dagger i} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) +\Phi_1^{\dagger i} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) + {\rm h.c.}\right] \\ & + \omega_1 \Phi_2^{\dagger i}\Phi_{2i}^{\phantom{\dagger}} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) +\displaystyle\frac{1}{2} \omega_2 \left[ \Phi_2^{\dagger i}\Phi_{2j}^{\phantom{\dagger}} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) \right. \\ &\left. +\Phi_2^{\dagger i}\Phi_2^{\dagger j} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) + {\rm h.c.}\right] \\ & +\omega_4 \left[ \Phi_2^{\dagger i} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i\right) +\Phi_2^{\dagger i} {\rm Tr}\left(S^{\dagger j} S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i S^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j\right) + {\rm h.c.}\right] , \end{split}$
(2)
where $ \omega_4 = 0 $ in Type I and Type IIu 2HDMW, and $ \nu_4 = 0 $ in the Type IId 2HDMW, which provides four massive and twelve massless parameters. The masses of scalars and their mixing angles are obtained by diagonalizing the mass matrices of this model. The expressions of those physical parameters were presented in Eqs. (6) and (7) in Ref. [18]. An overview over all assumptions, a comparison with the limiting cases of the 2HDM and the MW model, and an account of the free parameters are provided in Table 2.
MW dof. 2HDM dof. 2HDMW dof.
General (16) (13) (42)
CP conservation $ {\rm Im}[\nu_{i+2}]=0 $ (14) $ {\rm Im}[m_{12}^2]=0,\;{\rm Im}[\lambda_{i+4}]=0 $ (10) $ {\rm Im}[m_{12}^2]={\rm Im}[\lambda_{i+4}]=0 $,
$ {\rm Im}[\nu_{i+2}]={\rm Im}[\omega_{i+2}]={\rm Im}[\kappa_i]=0 $
(30)

Custodial symmetry case 1 of Ref.[18] $ \mu_1=\mu_2=\frac12 \mu_6 $,
$ \mu_4=\mu_5 $, $ \nu_2=2\nu_3 $, $ \nu_4=\nu_5^* $
(9) $ {\rm Im}[m_{12}^2]=0 $, $ {\rm Im}[\lambda_{i+4}]=0 $, $ \lambda_4=\lambda_5 $ (9) $ {\rm Im}[m_{12}^2]={\rm Im}[\lambda_{i+4}]=0 $, $ \lambda_4=\lambda_5 $,
$ \mu_1=\mu_2=\frac12 \mu_6 $, $ \mu_4=\mu_5 $, $ \nu_2=2\nu_3 $, $ \nu_4=\nu_5^* $, $ \omega_2=2\omega_3 $, $ \omega_4=\omega_5^* $, $ \kappa_2=\kappa_3 $
(24)

$ \mathbb{Z}_2 $ symmetry I/IIu (16) $ \lambda_6=\lambda_7=0 $ (9) $ \omega_4=\omega_5=\lambda_6=\lambda_7=0 $, $ \kappa_i=0 $ (28)
$ \mathbb{Z}_2 $ symmetry IId $ \nu_4=\nu_5=0 $ (12) $ \lambda_6=\lambda_7=0 $ (9) $ \nu_4=\nu_5=\lambda_6=\lambda_7=0 $, $ \kappa_i=0 $ (28)
Everything I/IIu (9) (7) (16)
Everything IId (8) (7) (16)


Table2.Overview over different model assumptions and their implementation and the number of free parameters ("dof.") in the corresponding scalar potentials. The index i ranges from 1 to 3. The last two lines are combinations of all assumptions and thus represent the CP-conserving custodial $ \mathbb{Z}_2 $ symmetric models used for our fits.

The general Yukawa potential of the 2HDMW in the flavor eigenstate basis is given by
$\begin{split}L_{Y} =& \left(- \eta_1^D {\left( Y_D \right)^a}_b {\bar D}_{R, a }\Phi_1^\dagger Q_L^b - \eta_2^D {\left( Y_D \right)^a}_b {\bar D}_{R, a } \Phi_2^\dagger Q_L^b\right. \\& - \eta_1^U {\left( Y_U \right)^a}_b {\bar U}_{R, a}{\tilde \Phi}_1^\dagger Q_L^b -\eta_S^D {\left( Y_D \right)^a}_b {\bar D}_{R, a}S^\dagger Q_L^b \\&\left.- \eta_S^U {\left( Y_U \right)^a}_b {\bar U}_{R, a }{\tilde S}^\dagger Q_L^b \right) + {\rm h.c.} , \end{split}$
(3)
where the $ \eta_i $ are complex constants. In the Type I 2HDMW, we have $ \eta_2^D \equiv 0 $, whereas for Type IIu (IId), $ \eta_1^D\equiv 0 $ and $ \eta_S^D\equiv 0 $ ($ \eta_S^U\equiv 0 $). We use the convention $ {\tilde H}_i = \varepsilon_{ij} H_j^* $, where $ H = \Phi_{1,2},S $, and a, b are flavor indices.
3.Theory constraints
2
3.1.Priors
-->

3.1.Priors

For our analysis, we make use of the open source package HEPfit [37], which is linked to the Bayesian Analysis Toolkit [38]. Even if experimental constraints are not applied and thus do not necessarily rely on a fitting tool, we chose this set-up for the following reasons: BAT can also deal with flat likelihood distributions, and HEPfit is optimized for a fast evaluation of the constraints. Sampling covers the entire parameter space, such that we cannot miss relevant regions. This is not guaranteed if we use a random scattering approach. Furthermore, the presented HEPfit implementation of the 2HDMW, as well as the MW and 2HDM limiting cases are available [37] and can be used in future HEPfit studies on these models, including the experimental data. More information on HEPfit is provided in Refs. [29, 39].
In our Bayesian fits, we use flat priors for the 2HDMW parameters with the following ranges:
$\begin{aligned}-50<\lambda_i,\mu_i,\nu_i,\omega_i<50\\ -2<\log_{10}(\tan\beta)<2\\ 0 \;{\rm GeV}^2<m_S^2<(1000 \;{\rm GeV})^2.\end{aligned} $
We fix $ \beta-\alpha $ to $ \pi/2 $ to align the light Higgs h with the SM Higgs and reproduce its signal strength values at tree-level. We set $ m_{12}^2 = 0 $, because its value is not relevant in this scenario. We do not require $ m_h = 125 $ GeV in the 2HDMW. This constraint can always be accomplished by adjusting $ m_{12}^2 $. Only in the MW limiting case with $ \Phi_2 = 0 $, we impose that the SM-like Higgs has a mass of $ 125.18\pm0.16 $ GeV [40, 41], which results in an almost fixed $ \lambda_1 $, like in the SM.
2
3.2.Unitarity
-->

3.2.Unitarity

The unitarity of the S-matrix can be used to place constraints on the parameters of a theory [42] (see also [14, 28, 4347]). If a certain combination of parameters becomes too large, an amplitude will appear to be non-unitary at a given order in perturbation theory. We refer to these constraints as perturbative unitarity bounds, or just unitarity bounds, even though the more accurate statement would be the breakdown of the perturbation theory.
Considering only two-to-two scattering, these constraints take the following forms at various orders in perturbation theory:
$\begin{split}&{\rm LO:} \quad \left(a_j^{(0)}\right)^2 \leqslant \frac{1}{4}, \\ &{\rm NLO:} \quad 0 \leqslant \left(a_j^{(0)}\right)^2 + 2 \left(a_j^{(0)}\right) {\rm Re}\left(a_0^{(1)}\right) \leqslant\frac{1}{4} , \\ &{\rm NLO+:} \quad \left[\left(a_j^{(0)}\right) + {\rm Re}\left(a_j^{(1)}\right)\right]^2 \leqslant \frac{1}{4}, \end{split}$
(4)
where $ a_j^{(\ell)} $ is the contribution at the $\ell $th order in perturbation theory to the jth partial wave amplitude. The NLO+ inequality includes the square of the NLO correction, and thus contains some, but not all of the NNLO contributions to the partial-wave amplitude. When considering the scattering of scalars at high energy, only the $ j = 0 $ partial wave amplitude is important. The matrix of partial wave amplitudes is given by
$ \left({{a}_{\bf{0}}}\right)_{i,f} = \frac{1}{16 \pi s} \int_{-s}^0 {\rm d}t \, {\cal{M}}_{i \to f}(s, t) , $
(5)
and we use $ a_0 $ to indicate the eigenvalues of $ {{a}_{\bf{0}}} $.
The two-to-two scattering matrix at the tree level in the neutral, color singlet channel of the 2HDMW model was recently derived in Refs. [18, 19]. As the scalar potential, Eq. (1) contains only quartic interaction terms, and the NLO unitarity bounds can be computed approximately using the algorithm of Ref. [30]. A virtue of this approach is its simplicity, as it only relies on knowledge of the LO partial wave matrix and the one-loop scalar contributions to the beta functions of the theory. This algorithm is built on previous work in Refs. [28, 29], and results for the special case of the 2HDM can be found in those references. The NLO contribution to the eigenvalue is given by a sum of two terms
$ a_0^{(1)} = a_{0, \sigma}^{(1)} + a_{0,\, \beta}^{(1)} . $
(6)
The first term follows from the unitarity of the theory, and it is proportional to the square of the LO eigenvalue
$ a_0^{(1)} = \left(i - \frac{1}{\pi}\right) \left(a_0^{(0)}\right)^2 . $
(7)
The second term depends on the one-loop beta functions of the theory, and it can be written in terms of the well known formula for the perturbations of the eigenvalues of an eigensystem for the which the exact LO solution is known
$ a_{0,\, \beta}^{(1)} = \vec{x}_{(0)}^{\top} \cdot {{a}}_{0,\, \beta}^{(1)} \cdot \vec{x}_{(0)} , $
(8)
where $ \vec{x}_{(0)} $ are the LO eigenvectors and
$ {{a}}_{0,\, \beta}^{(1)} = - \frac{3}{2} \left.{{a}}_{0}^{(0)}\right|_{\lambda_m \to \beta_{\lambda_m}} , $
(9)
with $ \beta_{\lambda_m} $ as the beta function associated with the coupling $ \lambda_m $. The approximation is computed at a scale where the center-of-mass energy is much greater than the other scales in the problem (recently, finite $ m^2/s $ corrections have been studied for colorless scalar SM extensions [46, 47]). Hence, we only start enforcing the unitarity bounds for RGE scales above $ 750 $ GeV$ \:\approx\!\sqrt{10}\:v $, and do not impose unitarity bounds when running from the EW scale to 750 GeV.
We also enforce the smallness of higher order corrections to the partial wave amplitudes with the following constraint [28, 29, 48, 49]
$ R^{\prime} \equiv \frac{\left|a_0^{(1)}\right|}{\left|a_0^{(0)}\right|} < 1 $
(10)
for each eigenvalue of the partial wave matrix, as long as $ a_0^{(0)}>0.01 $.
2
3.3.Boundedness from below
-->

3.3.Boundedness from below

To achieve a potential that is bounded from below, we extract the positivity conditions from the generic potential (1), assuming only that all couplings are real. Setting all but one or two of the real scalar fields to zero, we require the resulting coefficient matrix to be copositive [50].
$ \mu = \mu_1 + \mu_2 + \mu_6 + 2 (\mu_3 + \mu_4 + \mu_5) > 0, $
(11)
$ \mu_1 + \mu_2 + \mu_3 + \mu_4 > 0, $
(12)
$ 14 (\mu_1 + \mu_2) + 5 \mu_6 + 24 (\mu_3 + \mu_4) - 3 \left| 2 (\mu_1 + \mu_2) - \mu_6 \right| > 0, $
(13)
$ 5 (\mu_1 + \mu_2 + \mu_6) + 6 (2\mu_3 + \mu_4 + \mu_5) - \left| \mu_1 + \mu_2 + \mu_6 \right| > 0, $
(14)
$ \nu_1 + \sqrt{\lambda_1 \mu }> 0, $
(15)
$ \nu_1 + \nu_2 - 2|\nu_3| + \sqrt{\lambda_1 \mu}> 0, $
(16)
$ \lambda_1 + \frac14 \mu + \nu_1 + \nu_2 + 2 \nu_3 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}|\nu_4+\nu_5| >0, $
(17)
$ \lambda_1> 0, $
(18)
$ \lambda_2> 0, $
(19)
$ \lambda_3+\sqrt{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}> 0, $
(20)
$ \lambda_3+\lambda_4-|\lambda_5|+\sqrt{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}> 0, $
(21)
$ \frac12(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)+\lambda_3+\lambda_4+\lambda_5-2|\lambda_6+\lambda_7|> 0, $
(22)
$ \omega_1 + \sqrt{\lambda_2 \mu}> 0, $
(23)
$ \omega_1 + \omega_2 - 2|\omega_3| + \sqrt{\lambda_2 \mu}> 0, $
(24)
$ \lambda_2 + \frac14 \mu + \omega_1 + \omega_2 + 2 \omega_3 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}|\omega_4+\omega_5| >0 . $
(25)
We want to stress that these conditions are necessary but not sufficient, since we did not analyze the cases with three or more non-zero fields, leaving the $ \kappa_i $ unconstrained. While pure 2HDM inequalities (18) to (22) have been known before [31, 51], we are not aware of such conditions in the Manohar-Wise model; that is why we derive (11) to (18) in the most general way. Finally, (23) to (25) only appear in the 2HDMW.
In our simplified potential $ V_{{\rm {fit}}} $, the positivity conditions reduce to
$\begin{split}\;\;&\mu' = 4\mu_1 + 2\mu_3 + 4\mu_4 > 0, \qquad 5 \mu_1 + 3 \mu_3 + 3 \mu_4 - \left| \mu_1 \right| > 0, \\ &\nu_1 + \sqrt{\lambda_1 \mu'}> 0, \qquad \nu_1 + 2\nu_2 + \sqrt{\lambda_1 \mu'} > 0, \\& \lambda_1 + \frac14 \mu' + \nu_1 + 2\nu_2 - \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}|\nu_4| > 0, \qquad\lambda_1> 0, \qquad \lambda_2> 0, \\& \lambda_3+\sqrt{\lambda_1 \lambda_2} > 0, \qquad \lambda_3+2\lambda_4+\sqrt{\lambda_1 \lambda_2} > 0, \\& \omega_1 + \sqrt{\lambda_2 \mu'}> 0, \qquad \omega_1 + 2\omega_2 + \sqrt{\lambda_2 \mu'}> 0, \\& \lambda_2 + \frac14 \mu' + \omega_1 + 2\omega_2 - \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}|\omega_4| > 0. \end{split}$
(26)

2
3.4.Positivity of the mass squares
-->

3.4.Positivity of the mass squares

Additional bounds are derived from requiring the masses of the colored scalars to be real:
$ \begin{split}& \nu_1 c_{\beta}^2 + \omega_1 s_{\beta}^2 > - \frac{4 m_S^2}{v^2} , \\& (\nu_1 + 2 \nu_2) c_{\beta}^2 + (\omega_1 + 2 \omega_2) s_{\beta}^2 > - \frac{4 m_S^2}{v^2} . \end{split}$
(27)
with $ v = \sqrt{v_1^2 + v_2^2} \approx 246 $ GeV, and where $ s_{\beta} $ and $ c_{\beta} $ are the sine and cosine of β, respectively, with $ \tan\beta = v_1 / v_2 $. We must have $ m_S^2 > 0 $, such that the vacuum preserves $ SU(3)_C $. The mass splitting between the colored states is
$ \frac{2}{v^2} \left(m_R^2 - m_{S^{\pm}}^2\right) = \nu_2 c_{\beta}^2 + \omega_2 s_{\beta}^2 , $
(28)
and $ m_{S^{\pm}}^2 = m_I^2 $ owing to custodial symmetry.
2
3.5.Renormalization group stability
-->

3.5.Renormalization group stability

Thus far, we only discussed theory constraints at the electroweak scale. Assuming the validity of the model up to some higher scale imposes bounds on the parameters: Scenarios that define a viable model at $ m_Z $ could feature one (or more) quartic couplings with unstable behavior under the renormalization group evolution to a higher scale. This could be due to a Landau pole, however also the boundedness-from-below criteria described in Sec. 3.3 should be fulfilled at any scale. Furthermore, the unitarity conditions should be applied at least above some scale, $ \mu_u $, as they are computed in the limit $ \mu_u\gg \sqrt{\lambda_i} v $ with $ \lambda_i $ denoting quartic coupling of the theory. Here, we chose $ \mu_u = 750 $ GeV, as in Ref. [29]. We only take into account the quartic coupling terms from [19] and neglect the contributions of Yukawa and gauge couplings to the RGEs. In Ref. [19], it was shown how the parameter space is constrained in three cases where $ \log_{10}(\Lambda/1\ {\rm GeV}) = $10, 13, 19 if LO unitarity and 2HDM stability are applied.
4.Results
While the boundedness-from-below constraints are trivial, we discuss the different unitarity constraints in the 2HDMW, before considering higher scales and the effect of the theory constraints on the physical parameters for both the 2HDMW and the MW model. Due to the large number of degrees of freedom, we present the direct comparison of model parameters in most cases. The results are also translated into physical parameters, such as scalar masses.
The contours in figures presented below are the 100% posterior probability regions. If we change the prior distribution of tanβ, for instance, replacing a flat $ \log_{10}(\tan\beta) $ by a flat tanβ prior, this will modify the shape of the posterior distributions (probably only slightly), however it will not modify the 100% limit.
2
4.1.Different unitarity constraints
-->

4.1.Different unitarity constraints

In Fig. 1, we show the effects of LO, NLO, and NLO+ criteria on the $ \lambda_4 $ vs. $ \lambda_3 $ and $ \mu_4 $ vs. $ \mu_3 $ planes, as well as the impact of the R′ conditions explained in Sec. 3.2 at the electroweak scale. These bounds are calculated without running the renormalization-group equations, except for the red region. We observe that – contrary to the 2HDM case, c.f. Fig. 2 of Ref. [29] – the quartic couplings enjoy more freedom if we apply NLO(+) or the R′ criteria instead of the LO unitarity. The reason for this is that the LO unitarity conditions only depend on a few quartic couplings and disallow extreme values for them, while in the NLO(+) case, large quartic couplings can be compensated by tuning some of the other quartic couplings. Along the diagonal of the left hand panel of Fig. 1, we can observe the consequence of not applying the R′ criteria if the LO unitarity condition is accidentally small: in the small strip with $ |\lambda_4+\lambda_3|\leqslant 0.01 $, the quartic coupling $ \lambda_4 $ can be larger than $ 11 $ in magnitude. If we compare all sets of unitarity constraints with the region that is stable at least up to 1 TeV and compatible with NLO+ unitarity and the R′ conditions, we observe that the latter is a very strong bound. Here, we stress that we recommend to use the NLO(+) unitarity conditions only at scales significantly larger than the electroweak vev, because beyond LO, the quartic couplings are running couplings evaluated at an energy much larger than v.
Figure1. (color online) Comparison of different unitarity bounds in $ \lambda_4 $ vs. $ \lambda_3 $ and $ \mu_4 $ vs. $ \mu_3 $ planes at electroweak scale. Bounds shaded by colors other than red are obtained without running of renormalization-group. Tree-level unitarity constrains the quartic couplings to beige areas; two sets of one-loop conditions NLO and NLO+ force couplings to stay within pink and light blue regions, respectively. The purple contour delimits the area compatible with R′ conditions. Different unitarity bounds at the electroweak scale need to be compared to the regions with stable running, including unitarity up to a scale of 1 TeV (red).

Figure2. (color online) RG stability in $ \lambda_4 $ vs. $ \lambda_3 $ and $ \nu_4 $ vs. $ \nu_2 $ planes of 2HDMW of type I at the electroweak scale. Blue contours represent all scenarios that lead to a stable potential up to 1 TeV without imposing any unitarity constraint, whereas NLO+ unitarity and R′ are added to the set of constraints for red regions. The dark red region is compatible with all theory bounds and with a stable potential up to $ 63 $ TeV.

2
4.2.Combination of all theoretical constraints
-->

4.2.Combination of all theoretical constraints

In Fig. 2, we illustrate the combination of the theory constraints with stability up to a certain scale in the $ \lambda_4 $ vs. $ \lambda_3 $ and $ \nu_4 $ vs. $ \nu_2 $ planes as representative examples of the 2HDMW. The limits obtained from the global fit to all quartic couplings of the 2HDMW and the MW limiting case can be found in Table 3. In this section, we analyze three different scenarios: in the first case, we run all quartic couplings to the stability scale of $ \mu_{st} = 1 $ TeV, whilst at each iteration of the RG evolution controlling whether the potential is bounded from below and whether all quartic couplings are in the perturbative regime, which is smaller than $ 4\pi $ in magnitude. We find that with these constraints, the absolute value of the quartic couplings at the electroweak scale cannot exceed limits between $ 3.3 $ and $ 8.5 $ ($ 1.7 $ and $ 7.5 $) without applying any unitarity bound to the 2HDMW (MW). This has to be confronted with the second scenario, in which we add the NLO+ unitarity constraints as well as the R′ criteria at scales above $ 750 $ GeV to the previous fit. The impact on the parameters is quite sizable: in Fig. 2, we see that the allowed regions shrink by a factor of 1.5 to 2. The maximally allowed values for the quartic couplings range from $ 2.2 $ to $ 5.7 $ in the 2HDMW and from $ 1.3 $ to $ 5.6 $ in the MW, as shown in Table 3. For comparison, the theory-only upper limit on the quartic couplings of the 2HDM is $ 5.75 $ [29]. Finally, we impose that the scalar potential with all discussed theory bounds is stable up to even higher scales $ \Lambda $. Originally, high scales of $ 10^{4.8} $, $ 10^{7.6} $, $ 10^{12} $ and $ 10^{19} $ GeV were to be tested in evenly spaced steps in the logarithm of $ \log_{10} \Lambda $ towards the Planck scale, however our fitting set-up became unstable beyond $ 10^{4.8} $ GeV. If we choose $ 10^{4.8} $ GeV$ \approx 63 $ TeV as our high scale example, all parameters have to be within the range of $ -1.8 $ and $ 2.2 $ in the 2HDMW and between $ -1.6 $ and $ 2.2 $ in the MW. Hence, the limits at $ 63 $ TeV are stronger by a factor of about $ 2/5 $ with respect to the ones obtained with stability at 1 TeV. As a complete illustration, we arrange pairwise correlations of the bounds between all the couplings in Figs. 4 and 5 in the Appendix.
Unitarity $ \mu_{st} $ 2HDMW limits MW limits
LO NLO+,R' NLO+,R' LO NLO+,R' NLO+,R'
1 TeV 1 TeV 1 TeV 63 TeV 1 TeV 1 TeV 1 TeV 63 TeV
$ \lambda_1 $ [0, 3.9] [0, 3.9] [0, 2.7] [0, 1.0] $ 0.2585\pm 0.0007 $
$ \lambda_2 $ [0, 3.9] [0, 3.9] [0, 2.7] [0, 1.0]
$ \lambda_3 $ [?3.4, 5.8] [?3.2, 5.5] [?2.4, 4.2] [?0.9, 1.6]
$ \lambda_4 $ [?3.3, 3.8] [?3.2, 3.5] [?2.2, 2.5] [?0.9, 0.9]
$ \mu_1 $ [?5.5, 6.0] [?5.3, 5.8] [?3.8, 4.1] [?1.5, 1.4] [?5.3, 5.8] [?5.3, 2.0] [?3.6, 4.0] [?1.4, 1.2]
$ \mu_3 $ [?8.5, 7.8] [?8.1, 7.7] [?5.2, 5.7] [?1.8, 2.2] [?8.5, 7.5] [0.0, 4.4] [?5.1, 5.6] [?1.6, 2.2]
$ \mu_4 $ [?3.7, 4.9] [?3.3, 4.8] [?2.3, 3.2] [?0.9, 1.2] [?3.6, 4.8] [?4.0, 2.3] [?2.1, 3.1] [?0.7, 1.2]
$ \nu_1 $ [?4.7, 6.3] [?4.5, 5.6] [?3.1, 4.6] [?1.2, 1.7] [?1.7, 6.3] [?1.2, 6.4] [?1.3, 4.3] [?0.8, 1.6]
$ \nu_2 $ [?4.0, 5.2] [?3.6, 5.0] [?2.7, 3.5] [?1.1, 1.3] [?3.3, 5.1] [?6.2, 6.4] [?2.3, 3.4] [?1.0, 1.3]
$ \nu_4 $ [?5.0, 5.0] [?4.8, 4.7] [?3.3, 3.3] [?1.3, 1.3] [?4.6, 4.5] [?7.6, 7.7] [?2.9, 2.9] [?1.1, 1.1]
$ \omega_1 $ [?4.7, 6.3] [?4.5, 6.0] [?3.1, 4.5] [?1.2, 1.7]
$ \omega_2 $ [?4.0, 5.2] [?3.9, 5.1] [?2.8, 3.5] [?1.1, 1.3]
$ \omega_4 $ [?4.9, 4.9] [?4.8, 4.7] [?3.2, 3.3] [?1.3, 1.3]
$ m_A-m_H $ [GeV] [?390, 440] [?340, 400] [?340, 360] [?210, 230]
$ m_R-m_I $ [GeV] [?320, 370] [?280, 330] [?260, 310] [?170, 190] [?250, 300] [?100, 230] [?180, 250] [?150, 180]


Table3.Limits on quartic couplings and two mass differences with different assumptions. Second to fourth columns list 2HDMW results. Note that $ \nu_4 $ ($ \omega_4 $) is only non-zero in the case(s) of the type I, IIu (IId) 2HDMW. Columns five to seven contain the results of the MW limiting case. In this case, $ \lambda_1 = m_h^2/v^2 $.

In the MW limiting case, the role of $ \lambda_1 $ is different, as it is the only parameter that the mass of the SM-like Higgs depends on; it is thus basically fixed by the Higgs mass measurements. Moreover, we do not impose any $ \mathbb{Z}_2 $ symmetry on the MW model, and thus we treat $ \nu_4 $ as a free parameter. The main difference between the limits on quartic couplings in the 2HDMW and MW models is in the extent of negativity of $ \nu_1 $. Since $ \lambda_1 $ is fixed in the MW model, the positivity of the model limits the size of $ \nu_1 $. The Higgs trilinear coupling is sensitive to $ \nu_1 $ at the one-loop level. Thus, larger values of $ \nu_1 $ are advantageous for observation attempts of the double-Higgs boson production at the LHC.
Comparing our results with those of Ref. [19], we find that our permitted ranges for the quartic couplings assuming stability and NLO unitarity up to 63 TeV are more or less of the same size, as previous limits using LO unitarity and no MW positivity up to 2×104 TeV.
The limits on quartic couplings can be translated into bounds on physical model parameters. As in the 2HDM, we observe strong restrictions of the differences between $ m_H^2 $ and $ m_A^2 $ [29, 49], however also $ m_I^2 $ cannot deviate very much from $ m_R^2 $, as shown in Fig. 3. The former mass square difference depends on the values of the $ \lambda_i $, while $ m_R^2-m_I^2 $ is proportional to $ \nu_2 c^2_\beta+\omega_2 s^2_\beta $, see Eq. (28). The linear dependence of the upper limit of the mass splittings for light $ m_H $ and $ m_R $ arises by requiring both masses to be positive. This feature does not appear in the analogous limit in Figure 6 of Ref. [29], because the mass splittings in that figure are plotted against the mass of a third Higgs boson. Fittings to the mass differences $ m_A-m_H $ and $ m_R-m_I $ in the three mentioned scenarios yield upper bounds between $ 440 $ GeV and $ 170 $ GeV in the 2HDMW and between $ 300 $ GeV and $ 150 $ GeV in the MW model, as shown in the last two rows of Table 3. Similarly as in the 2HDMW, the theory-only limit on the mass splitting in the 2HDM is 360 GeV [29]. Even if Figs. 2 and 3 were obtained for the Type I 2HDMW, the 2HDMW limits in Table 3 are valid for all three types, while either $ \nu_4 $ or $ \omega_4 $ have to be set to zero, depending on the type.
Figure3. (color online) Comparison of different stability scales in $ m_H-m_A $ vs. $ m_H $ and $ m_R-m_I $ vs. $ m_R $ planes of Type I 2HDMW. Color coding is described in Fig. 2.

5.Conclusions
The NLO unitarity bounds were studied on the 2HDMW, which extends the scalar sector of 2HDM with an additional color octet scalar. Although less constraining than the LO unitarity bounds at the electro-weak scale, the NLO unitarity constraints become stronger when approaching higher scales greater than 1 TeV. However, compared with the MW model, which is the limiting case of 2HDMW, common quartic couplings, i.e. μ's and ν's, are allowed for larger ranges under these constraints.
We derived a set of necessary conditions to bound the 2HDMW potential from below for the first time. These conditions constrain most of the quartic couplings with the exception of a few. They are also applicable to the limiting case of the MW model.
Finally, we have combined all theoretical constraints and found limits of the couplings assuming stability at different scales. Requiring a stable potential at a higher scale favors smaller mass differences between pairs of neutral scalars, such as $ m_A-m_H $ and $ m_R-m_I $.
The next step would be a study combining experimental constraints, for which our publicly available HEPfit implementation could be used.
We thank C. Murgui, A. Pich and G. Valencia for fruitful discussions. We thank the INFN Roma Tre Cluster, where most of the fits were performed.
Appendix
For the sake of completeness, we provide the two-dimensional correlations of the 2HDMW in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. The former also contains the MW subset, while the latter includes 2HDM correlations.
Figure4. (color online) Pairwise correlations of bounds between all couplings at different scales. The colored scheme of representing different constraints is the same as that of Fig. 2. The cyan dashed box contains MW parameters.

Figure5. (color online) Pairwise correlation of bounds between all couplings at different scales. The colored scheme of representing different constraints is the same as that of Fig. 2. The orange dashed box contains 2HDM parameters.

婵犵數濮烽弫鎼佸磻閻愬搫鍨傞柛顐f礀缁犱即鏌熺紒銏犳灈缁炬儳顭烽弻鐔煎礈瑜忕敮娑㈡煟閹惧鈽夋い顓炴健閹虫粌顕ュΔ濠侀偗闁诡喗锕㈤幃鈺冪磼濡厧甯鹃梻浣稿閸嬪懐鎹㈤崟顖氭槬闁挎繂顦伴悡娆戔偓瑙勬礀濞层倝鍩㈤崼鈶╁亾鐟欏嫭绀冪紒顔肩Ч楠炲繘宕ㄩ弶鎴炲祶濡炪倖鎸鹃崰鎰邦敊韫囨稒鈷掗柛灞捐壘閳ь剙鍢查湁闁搞儺鐏涘☉銏犵妞ゆ劑鍊栧▓鎯ь渻閵堝棗鍧婇柛瀣尰閵囧嫰顢曢敐鍥╃杽婵犵鍓濋幃鍌炲春閳╁啯濯撮柧蹇曟嚀楠炩偓婵犵绱曢崑鎴﹀磹閺嶎厽鍋嬫俊銈呮噺閸嬶繝鏌曢崼婵囩┛濠殿喗濞婇弻鈩冨緞婵犲嫭鐨戝┑鈩冨絻閻楁捇寮婚敓鐘茬闁挎繂鎳嶆竟鏇熺節閻㈤潧袨闁搞劍妞介弫鍐閻樺灚娈鹃梺鍛婄箓鐎氼噣寮抽崱娑欑厱闁哄洢鍔屾晶顔界箾閸繄鐒告慨濠冩そ瀹曘劍绻濋崒姣挎洘绻涚€涙ḿ鐭岄柛瀣ㄥ€曢悾宄懊洪鍕紜闂佸搫鍊堕崕鏌ワ綖瀹ュ鈷戦悷娆忓閸斻倝鏌f幊閸斿孩绂嶉幖渚囨晝闁靛牆娲ㄩ敍婊冣攽鎺抽崐鏇㈠疮椤愶箑鍑犻柡鍐ㄧ墛閻撴瑥顪冪€n亪顎楅柍璇茬墛椤ㄣ儵鎮欓弶鎴犱紝濡ょ姷鍋涘ú顓€€佸▎鎾充紶闁告洦浜i崺鍛存⒒閸屾艾鈧绮堟笟鈧獮鏍敃閿曗偓绾惧湱鎲搁悧鍫濈瑲闁稿绻濆鍫曞醇濮橆厽鐝曞銈庡亝濞茬喖寮婚妸鈺傚亞闁稿本绋戦锟�
2婵犵數濮烽弫鎼佸磻閻愬搫鍨傞柛顐f礀缁犳壆绱掔€n偓绱╂繛宸簻鎯熼梺鍐叉惈椤戝洨绮欒箛娑欌拺闁革富鍘奸崝瀣亜閵娿儲顥㈢€规洜鏁婚崺鈧い鎺戝閳锋垿鏌涘☉姗堝伐濠殿噯绠戦湁婵犲﹤鎳庢禒杈┾偓瑙勬礃濡炰粙寮幘缁樺亹鐎规洖娲ら獮妤呮⒒娓氣偓濞佳呮崲閸儱纾归柡宓偓濡插牏鎲搁弮鍫濊摕闁挎繂顦悞娲煕閹板吀绨奸柛锝庡幘缁辨挻鎷呴崜鎻掑壈闂佹寧娲︽禍顏勵嚕椤愶箑纾奸柣鎰綑濞堟劙姊洪崘鍙夋儓闁哥姵鑹惧嵄闁告鍋愰弨浠嬫煃閽樺顥滃ù婊呭仜椤儻顦虫い銊ワ躬瀵偆鈧綆鍓涚壕钘壝归敐澶嬫锭濠殿喖鍊搁湁婵犲﹤妫楅悡鎰庨崶褝鍔熼柍褜鍓氱粙鎺曟懌婵犳鍨伴顓犳閹烘垟妲堟慨妤€妫楅崜杈╃磽閸屾氨孝闁挎洏鍎茬粚杈ㄧ節閸ヨ埖鏅濋梺闈涚墕閹峰寮抽銏♀拺闁告捁灏欓崢娑㈡煕閵娿儳鍩g€规洘妞介崺鈧い鎺嶉檷娴滄粓鏌熸潏鍓хɑ缁绢叀鍩栭妵鍕晜閼测晝鏆ら梺鍝勬湰缁嬫垿鍩㈡惔銈囩杸闁哄洨濯崬鍦磽閸屾瑧绐旂紓鍌涜壘铻為柛鏇ㄥ枤娴滄瑩姊绘担鍛婂暈婵炶绠撳畷銏c亹閹烘垹锛涢梺鍦劋椤ㄥ棝鍩涢幋锔界厱婵犻潧妫楅鈺呮煃瑜滈崜娆戠礊婵犲洤绠栭梺鍨儐缂嶅洭鏌嶉崫鍕簽婵炶偐鍠庨埞鎴︻敊鐟欐帞鎳撻埢鏂库槈閵忊€冲壒濠德板€愰崑鎾绘煃鐟欏嫬鐏撮柟顔规櫊楠炴捇骞掗崱妞惧闂佸綊妫跨粈渚€鏌ㄩ妶鍛斀闁绘ɑ褰冮弸銈嗙箾閸粎鐭欓柡宀嬬秮楠炲洭顢楁担鍙夌亞闂備焦鎮堕崐妤呭窗閹邦喗宕叉繝闈涱儏閻掑灚銇勯幒鎴濐仼闁绘帗妞介弻娑㈠箛椤栨稓銆婇梺娲诲幗椤ㄥ懘鍩為幋锔绘晩缂佹稑顑嗛悾鍫曟⒑缂佹﹩娈旂紒缁樺笧閸掓帡宕奸悢椋庣獮闁诲函缍嗛崜娑㈩敊閺囥垺鈷戦柣鐔煎亰閸ょ喎鈹戦鐐毈鐎殿喗濞婇崺锟犲磼濠婂拋鍟庨梺鑽ゅТ濞壯囧礋椤愵偂绱�547闂傚倸鍊搁崐椋庣矆娴i潻鑰块梺顒€绉查埀顒€鍊圭粋鎺斺偓锝庝簽閿涙盯姊洪悷鏉库挃缂侇噮鍨堕崺娑㈠箳濡や胶鍘遍梺鍝勬处椤ㄥ棗鈻嶉崨瀛樼厽闊浄绲奸柇顖炴煛瀹€瀣埌閾绘牠鎮楅敐搴′簻妞ゅ骏鎷�4婵犵數濮烽弫鎼佸磻閻愬搫鍨傞柛顐f礀缁犳壆绱掔€n偓绱╂繛宸簼閺呮煡鏌涢妷銏℃珖妞わ富鍨跺娲偡闁箑娈堕梺绋款儑閸犳牠宕洪姀銈呯睄闁逞屽墴婵$敻宕熼鍓ф澑闂佽鍎抽顓⑺囬柆宥嗏拺缂佸顑欓崕鎰版煙閻熺増鎼愰柣锝呭槻椤粓鍩€椤掑嫨鈧線寮崼婵嗚€垮┑掳鍊曢崯顐︾嵁閹扮増鈷掗柛灞剧懅椤︼箓鏌涘顒夊剰妞ゎ厼鐏濋~婊堝焵椤掆偓閻g兘顢涢悜鍡樻櫇闂侀潧绻堥崹鍝勨枔妤e啯鈷戦梻鍫熶緱濡狙冣攽閳ヨ櫕鍠橀柛鈹垮灲瀵噣宕奸悢鍝勫箥闂備胶顢婇~澶愬礉閺囥垺鍎嶆繛宸簼閻撶喖鏌i弮鍫熸暠閻犳劧绱曠槐鎺撴綇閵娿儳鐟查悗鍨緲鐎氼噣鍩€椤掑﹦绉靛ù婊呭仦缁傛帡鎮℃惔妯绘杸闂佺粯鍔樺▔娑氭閿曞倹鐓曟俊銈呭閻濐亜菐閸パ嶅姛闁逞屽墯缁嬫帟鎽繝娈垮灡閹告娊骞冨畡鎵虫瀻婵炲棙鍨甸崺灞剧箾鐎涙ḿ鐭掔紒鐘崇墵瀵鈽夐姀鐘电杸闂佺ǹ绻愰幗婊堝极閺嶎厽鈷戠紒顖涙礃濞呮梻绱掔紒妯肩疄鐎殿喛顕ч埥澶娾堪閸涱垱婢戦梻浣瑰缁诲倿骞婃惔顭掔稏闁冲搫鎳忛埛鎴︽煕濞戞﹫鍔熼柟铏礈缁辨帗娼忛妸锔绢槹濡ょ姷鍋涚换姗€骞冮埡鍐╁珰闁肩⒈鍓﹂崯瀣⒒娴e憡鍟炲〒姘殜瀹曞綊骞庨崜鍨喘閸╋繝宕ㄩ瑙勫闂佽崵鍋炵粙鍫ュ焵椤掆偓閸樻牗绔熼弴銏♀拻濞达絽鎲$拹锟犲几椤忓棛纾奸柕濞垮妼娴滃湱绱掗鍛箺鐎垫澘瀚伴獮鍥敇閻樻彃绠婚梻鍌欑閹碱偆鈧凹鍓涢幑銏ゅ箳閺冨洤小闂佸湱枪缁ㄧ儤绂嶅⿰鍫熺厸闁搞儺鐓侀鍫熷€堕柤纰卞厴閸嬫挸鈻撻崹顔界彯闂佺ǹ顑呴敃銈夘敋閿濆洦宕夐悶娑掑墲閻庡姊虹拠鈥崇€婚柛蹇庡嫎閸婃繂顫忕紒妯诲闁荤喖鍋婇崵瀣磽娴e壊鍎愰柛銊ㄥ劵濡喎顪冮妶鍡樺蔼闁搞劌缍婇幃鐐哄垂椤愮姳绨婚梺鍦劋閸╁﹪寮ㄦ繝姘€垫慨妯煎亾鐎氾拷40缂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹妞嬪海鐭嗗〒姘e亾閽樻繃銇勯弽銊х煂闁活厽鎸鹃埀顒冾潐濞叉牕煤閵娧呬笉闁哄啫鐗婇悡娆撴煙椤栧棗鑻▓鍫曟⒑瀹曞洨甯涙慨濠傜秺楠炲牓濡搁妷顔藉缓闂侀€炲苯澧版繛鎴犳暬楠炴牗鎷呴崨濠勨偓顒勬煟鎼搭垳绉靛ù婊冪埣閹垽宕卞☉娆忎化闂佹悶鍎荤徊娲磻閹捐绀傞柛娑卞弾濡粎绱撻崒姘偓宄懊归崶銊d粓闁归棿鐒﹂崑锟犳煃閸濆嫭鍣归柦鍐枔閳ь剙鍘滈崑鎾绘煕閺囥劌浜炴い鎾存そ濮婃椽骞愭惔锝囩暤濠电偠灏欐繛鈧€规洘鍨块獮妯肩磼濡鍔掗梺鑽ゅ枑閻熴儳鈧凹鍓熷畷銏c亹閹烘挴鎷洪梺鍛婄箓鐎氼厼顔忓┑瀣厱閹兼番鍨归悘鈺備繆閸欏濮囨顏冨嵆瀹曞ジ鎮㈤崫鍕闂傚倷鑳剁涵鍫曞礈濠靛枹娲冀椤愩儱小缂備緡鍋勭€殿剟姊婚崒姘偓椋庢濮橆兗缂氱憸宥堢亱闂佸搫鍟崐濠氭儗閸℃褰掓晲閸偄娈欓梺鑽ゅ枑鐎氬牓寮崼婵嗙獩濡炪倖妫侀~澶屸偓鍨墵濮婄粯鎷呴崨濠傛殘婵炴挻纰嶉〃濠傜暦閵忋倖瀵犲璺烘閻庢椽鎮楅崗澶婁壕闂佸憡娲﹂崜娑㈠储闁秵鈷戦柛婵嗗閺嗙偤鏌熺粙鍨挃濠㈣娲熼獮鎰償濞戞鐩庨梻渚€娼ф蹇曟閺団偓鈧倿鎳犻鍌滐紲闂佸搫鍟崐鎼佸几濞戞瑣浜滈柕蹇婂墲缁€瀣煙椤旇娅婃い銏℃礋閿濈偤顢橀悜鍡橆棥濠电姷鏁搁崑鐘诲箵椤忓棛绀婇柍褜鍓氶妵鍕敃閵忊晜鈻堥梺璇″櫙缁绘繈宕洪埀顒併亜閹烘垵顏柍閿嬪浮閺屾稓浠﹂幑鎰棟闂侀€炲苯鍘哥紒顔界懇閵嗕礁鈻庨幇顔剧槇闂佸憡娲﹂崜锕€岣块悢鍏尖拺闁告挻褰冩禍婵囩箾閸欏澧辩紒顔垮吹缁辨帒螣闂€鎰泿闂備浇顫夊畷妯衡枖濞戙埄鏁佺€光偓閸曨剛鍘告繛杈剧到婢瑰﹪宕曡箛鏂讳簻妞ゆ挴鍓濈涵鍫曟煙妞嬪骸鈻堥柛銊╃畺瀹曟宕ㄩ娑樼樆闂傚倸鍊风欢姘跺焵椤掑倸浠滈柤娲诲灦瀹曘垽骞栨担鍦幘闂佸憡鍔樼亸娆撳春閿濆應鏀介柨娑樺閺嗩剟鏌熼鐣屾噰鐎殿喖鐖奸獮瀣敇閻愭惌鍟屾繝鐢靛У椤旀牠宕板Δ鍛櫇闁冲搫鎳庣粈鍌涚箾閹寸偟顣叉い顐f礋閺屻劌鈹戦崱妯轰痪閻熸粎澧楃敮妤呭疾閺屻儲鐓曢柍鈺佸暟閹冲懘鏌i幘鍐测偓鎼佲€旈崘顔嘉ч柛鎰╁妿娴犲墽绱掗悙顒佺凡缂佸澧庨崚鎺楀煛閸涱喖浜滅紒鐐妞存悂寮插┑瀣拺闂傚牊绋撴晶鏇熺箾鐠囇呯暤妤犵偛妫濋弫鎰緞鐎Q勫闂備礁婀辨灙婵炲鍏橀崺銉﹀緞鐎c劋绨婚梺鎸庢椤曆冾嚕椤曗偓閺屾盯鍩為幆褌澹曞┑锛勫亼閸婃牜鏁幒妤佹櫇闁靛/鈧崑鎾愁潩閻愵剙顏�28缂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹妞嬪孩顐介柨鐔哄Т绾捐顭块懜闈涘Е闁轰礁顑囬幉鎼佸籍閸垹绁﹂梺鍛婂姦閸犳牜绮绘繝姘厱闁规崘灏欑粣鏃堟煃閻熸壆绠茬紒缁樼箞婵偓闁挎繂妫涢妴鎰斿Δ濠佺凹闁圭ǹ鍟块悾宄扳攽鐎n亜绐涢柣搴㈢⊕宀e潡宕㈤柆宥嗏拺闁告繂瀚弳濠囨煕鐎n偅灏电紒杈ㄥ笧閳ь剨缍嗛崑鍛暦瀹€鈧埀顒侇問閸n噣宕戞繝鍥х畺濞寸姴顑呴崹鍌涖亜閹扳晛鐏╂鐐村灴濮婄粯鎷呴崨濠冨創濠电偠顕滅粻鎴︼綖濠靛惟闁冲搫鍊告禒顓㈡⒑鐎圭姵銆冮悹浣瑰絻鍗遍柛顐犲劜閻撴瑩鏌i幇闈涘缂傚秵鍨块弻鐔煎礂閸忕厧鈧劙鏌$仦鐣屝ユい褌绶氶弻娑㈠箻閸楃偛顫囧Δ鐘靛仜缁绘﹢寮幘缁樻櫢闁跨噦鎷�1130缂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹妞嬪海鐭嗗〒姘e亾閽樻繃銇勯弽銊х煂闁活厽鎹囬弻娑㈠箻閼碱剦妲梺鎼炲妽缁诲牓寮婚妸鈺傚亜闁告繂瀚呴姀銏㈢<闁逞屽墴瀹曟帡鎮欑€电ǹ骞堟繝鐢靛仦閸ㄥ爼鏁冮锕€缁╃紓浣贯缚缁犻箖鏌涢锝囩畼闁绘帗鎮傞弻锛勪沪缁嬪灝鈷夐悗鍨緲鐎氼噣鍩€椤掑﹦绉靛ù婊勭矒閿濈偤宕堕浣叉嫼闂備緡鍋嗛崑娑㈡嚐椤栨稒娅犲Δ锝呭暞閻撴瑩鏌涢幋娆忊偓鏍偓姘炬嫹
相关话题/Novel theoretical constraints