\section{Introduction}
The Standard Model (SM) for elementary particles has been completed by the Higgs boson discovery.
The observed properties of the Higgs boson is totally consistent with that in the SM, and
no direct evidence of the new physics beyond the SM has been found at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) so far.
On the other hand, we know several indirect signatures of the beyond the SM, e.g.,
the existence of dark matter, smallness of the neutrino mass and the baryon asymmetry of the universe.
Furthermore, there are many open questions in the SM as a consistent theory such as
the naturalness problem of the Higgs boson mass \cite{MPP,RGE}, that of the cosmological constant \cite{MEP},
the origin of the electroweak symmetry breaking \cite{CCS}, and so on.
To solve these questions, various models have been proposed.
Each of them has its own theoretical motivations and characteristic phenomenological predictions.
In order to disentangle these models,
some experimental inputs of new physics is quite important. \\

Recently, both the ATLAS and CMS collaborations have reported the excesses of the signal events
in the diphoton invariant mass distribution at around $750$~GeV based on the first results of the LHC Run 2 data~\cite{ATLAS,CMS}.
Although these signal significances are around $3\sigma$ confidence level,
the results might be an indication of new physics beyond the SM.
It would be valuable to study the interpretation of the observed excesses by simple scenarios
because such a scenario can be understood as a low energy effective theory of more fundamental theories.
By taking the Laudau-Yang theorem \cite{Landau:1948kw,Yang:1950rg} into the consideration,
a possible simple scenario is that the new particle $X$ with $M_X\sim750$~GeV is a spin-zero SM singlet real
scalar (or pseudoscalar) boson which couples to new massive scalar bosons or fermions charged under the SM gauge group \cite{Diphoton:X}.
\footnote{
There can be other possible interpretations of the diphoton excesses.
An interesting interpretation is that the peak in the diphoton is not a resonance of the new particle $X$
but a cusp in the loop integral of the box diagram of new particle $Y$ with $M_Y^{}\sim 375$~GeV \cite{Diphoton:Y}.
}
\\

Before going into details of the models, let us summarize the general aspects of $X$.
When $X$ is a scalar, its effective couplings to the SM gauge bosons are parametrized as
\begin{equation}  {\cal{L}}_{\text{ eff}}\ni -\frac{X}{4}\left(g_{X\gamma}^{}F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}+g_{Xg}^{}G^{\mu\nu}G_{\mu\nu}\right), \end{equation}
where the dimensionful parameters $g_{X\gamma}^{}$ and $g_{Xg}^{}$ are determined
by evaluating loop diagrams when we fix the model.
Similarly, when $X$ is a pseudoscalar, the effective Lagrangian is given by
\begin{equation}   {\cal{L}}_{\text{ eff}}\ni-\frac{X}{4}\left(g_{X\gamma}^{}F^{\mu\nu}\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}+g_{Xg}^{}G^{\mu\nu}\tilde{G}_{\mu\nu}\right).\end{equation}
Here, $F^{\mu\nu}$ and $G^{\mu\nu}$ are the field strengths of the $U(1)_{\text{em}}$ and $SU(3)_{c}$ respectively.
Using these dimension-five interactions, the diphoton signal at the LHC can be interpreted
as the process $gg \to X \to \gamma\gamma$ in Fig.~\ref{FIG:diagram}.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{diagram.pdf}
\caption{A event topology of the simple interpretation for the LHC diphoton excess.
The new particle $X$ with $M_X=750$ is produced by the gluon-fusion, and decays into a pair of photons.}
\label{FIG:diagram}
\end{figure}
The diphoton cross section $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^{}$ is easily estimated
by the gluon-fusion production cross-section times
$\gamma\gamma$ branching ratio of $X$ at 13TeV.
In this paper, we follow the result in \cite{Ellis:2015oso}:
\aln{ \sigma_{\gamma\gamma}:&=\sigma(gg\rightarrow X)\times \text{Br}(X\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)\nonumber\\
&=(13\text{pb})\times(g_{X\gamma}\cdot \text{TeV})^2. \label{eq:theoretical cs}}
Note that the main decay mode of $X$ is assumed to be $gg$ channel
\footnote{This assumption typically predicts the narrow decay width of $X$ which is favored by CMS data \cite{CMS}.
On the other hand, ATLAS results prefer the wide width of $\sim 45$ GeV \cite{ATLAS}.}.
Thus, the dependence of $g_{Xg}^{}$ in the overall reaction rate is almost canceled out.
Throughout this paper, we assume the mass of internal particles in the loop
to be heavier than the half of $M_X$ in order to forbid the tree level decay of $X$.
On the other hand, the experimental data implies \cite{Ellis:2015oso}
\begin{equation}  \sigma_{\gamma\gamma}=1\text{--}10~\text{fb}.\label{eq:observed cs}\end{equation}
By calculating the effective coupling $g_{X\gamma}^{}$ in a specific model,
we can compare Eq.(\ref{eq:theoretical cs}) with Eq.(\ref{eq:observed cs}) and
discuss whether such a model is favorable in the context of the experimental data.
\\

The coupling $g_{X\gamma}^{}$ is generated at one-loop in each simple scenario.
Thus, its magnitude is typically small due to not only the one-loop suppression but also the new mass scale.
In order to generate sufficiently large $g_{X\gamma}^{}$,
we need relatively strong interactions among $X$ and the new SM charged particles.
It is known that such strong interactions often violate theoretical consistencies of the model.
For instance, a large trilinear scalar coupling $\mu$
tends to induce the vacuum instability. In order to rescue the vacuum stability, one may introduce
a large scalar quartic coupling $\lambda_{\phi}^{}$. However, such $\lambda_{\phi}^{}$ leads
a rapid blowup of the running coupling constant and breaks the perturbativity below the Planck scale.
Therefore, requirements of theoretical consistency give non-trivial constraints
on the models of the diphoton excesses. \\

In this paper, we study whether simple scenarios can explain the diphoton excesses at the LHC
while preserving the vacuum stability of the scalar potential and the perturbativity of the gauge, Yukawa and
scalar quartic coupling constants up to the Planck scale
\footnote{
For the scenarios with the vector-like fermions, the similar analysis was first done in \cite{Son:2015vfl} where they discuss the perturbativity and the vacuum stability of the models. Our analysis is more inclusive in that we also consider the extensions with the new SM charged scalars, and include the new scalar couplings. These couplings play important role to determine the Landau pole. See Section \ref{sec:scalar} for the details.
}
.
As for the new SM charged particles, we consider scalars (diquark, leptoquark and dilepton) or fermions
(vector-like quark and vector-like lepton) which can decay to the SM particles at tree level.
For the completeness, we also consider the cases with $N_{f}$ multiplets of the new SM charged particles
in order to maximize the diphoton cross sections.
To study the perturbativity up to the Planck scale, we use the one-loop renormalization group equations (RGEs)
.
If we consider a scalar $(N_f=1)$ as the new particles, only a few models can explain the observed cross section
without conflicting the experimental mass bounds. The allowed models require diquarks and dileptons near the threshold masses ($\lesssim 450$GeV).
All the leptoquark models are disfavored in our analysis
due to the strong lower mass bounds at the LHC and the rapid running of the scalar quartic coupling constants.
The increase of $N_f$ makes the situation better, however, too large $N_f$ is disfavored by the RGE of
the quartic coupling of the new scalars.
On the other hand, if we take vector-like fermions as the new particles, the effective coupling $g_{X\gamma\gamma}$
behaves differently depending on the type of the Yukawa couplings between $X$ and the fermions.
In the case of the scalar type coupling, only a few models are allowed if $N_{f}=1$.
If we increase $N_{f}$, more models are allowed.
Furthermore, in the case of the pseudoscalar type coupling, almost all of the models are allowed
because of the enhancement of the effective coupling $g_{X\gamma\gamma}$ due to the property of the one-loop integral.
 \\

This paper is organized as follows.
In Section \ref{sec:scalar}, we study the SM extended by $X$ and the new SM charged scalars.
Stability and perturbativity bounds of the new scalar sector are discussed
as well as the interpretation of the LHC diphoton excess.
In Section \ref{sec:fermion}, the scenarios with new vector-like fermions are considered in a similar manner.
Conclusions and discussion are given in Section \ref{sec:summary}. In \ref{app:bounds}, we summarize the direct search mass bounds for the new particles. In \ref{app:rge}, the one loop RGEs are presented.

\section{Extensions with New Scalar Bosons}\label{sec:scalar}
In this section, we study the extensions of the SM by new scalar multiplets with SM charges, which
will be regarded as the source of $g_{X\gamma}^{}$
via the one-loop diagram.
Requiring tree-level decays of the new scalar bosons,\footnote{
The abundance of long-lived charged particles is strongly constrained by cosmology ~\cite{Kang:2006yd}. On the other hand, color singlet particles are allowed as a part of Dark Matter \cite{MDM}. For those extensions, the following discussion can be equally applied.

}
their quantum charges of the new scalar fields are determined by the combination of the SM fermions.
We list all the possible charge assignments of the new scalar multiplets
in Table~\ref{Tab:DQs} for diquarks, Table~\ref{Tab:LQs} for leptoquarks, and Table~\ref{Tab:DLs} for dileptons.
Note that we include right-handed neutrinos $\nu_{R}^{}$ as SM fermions.
In these Tables, the normalization of the hypercharge is given by $I_3+Y_{\phi}=Q$. \\

\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c||c|c}
 {}
 & $SU(3)_c$ & $SU(2)_L$ & $U(1)_Y$ & $\lambda_{\phi}^{\text{Max}}$
 $(N_f^2 \lambda_\phi)^\text{Max}$  \\\hline\hline
 %
$DQ_0^d$ & ${\bf 3\,\, (6^*)}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $-1/3$  &$0.32\,\,(\times)
                  &$2.2\,|_{N_f=6}$\\\hline
$DQ_0^y$ & ${\bf 3\,\, (6^*)}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $-4/3$  &$0.34\,\,(\times)
                  &$1.2\,|_{N_f=3}$\\\hline
$DQ_0^u$ & ${\bf 3\,\, (6^*)}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $2/3$  &$0.33\,\,(\times)
                  &$2.2\,|_{N_f=6}$\\\hline
$DQ_1$ & ${\bf 3\,\, (6^*)}$ & ${\bf 3}$ & $-1/3$  &$0.13\,\,(\times)$& $0.13\,|_{N_f=1}$\\\hline
$DQ_{1/2}$ & ${\bf 1_H\,\, (8)}$ & ${\bf 2}$ & $1/2$ &$0.18\,\,(\times)
                    &$8.5\,|_{N_f=20}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{A list of diquarks which couple to the SM quarks. Here, $(N_{f}^2\lambda_{\phi})^\text{Max}$  is the maximal value of $N_{f}^2\lambda_{\phi}^\text{Max}$ where $\lambda_{\phi}^\text{Max}$ is calculated for each $N_f$ by requiring the perturbativity up to the Planck scale.
}
\label{Tab:DQs}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c||c|c|c}
 {}
 & $SU(3)_c$ & $SU(2)_L$ & $U(1)_Y$  & $\lambda_{\phi}^\text{Max}
 &$(N_f^2 \lambda_\phi)^\text{Max}$ \\\hline\hline
 %
$S_0^{d*}$ & ${\bf 3^*}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $1/3$ &$0.32
                   &$2.2\,|_{N_f=6}$ \\\hline
$S_0^{y*}$ & ${\bf 3^*}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $4/3$ &$0.34$
                   &$1.2\,|_{N_f=3}$ \\\hline
$S_1^*$     & ${\bf 3^*}$ & ${\bf 3}$ & $1/3$ &$0.13$ &$0.13\,|_{N_f=1}$ \\\hline
$S_{1/2}$   & ${\bf 3}$ & ${\bf 2}$ & $7/6$  &$0.25
                  &$0.46\,|_{N_f=2}$ \\\hline
$S^q_{1/2}$ & ${\bf 3}$ & ${\bf 2}$ & $1/6$ &$0.24
                   &$0.59\,|_{N_f=3}$  \\ \hline
$R_0^{u*}$ & ${\bf 3^*}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $-2/3$ &$0.33
                   &$2.2\,|_{N_f=6}$\\\hline
$R_0^{d*}$ & ${\bf 3^*}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $1/3$ &$0.32
                   &$2.2\,|_{N_f=6}$ \\\hline
$R_{1/2}^*$ & ${\bf 3}$ & ${\bf 2}$ & $-1/6$ &$0.24
                    &$0.59\,|_{N_f=3}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{A list of leptoquarks which couple to the SM fermions.
}
\label{Tab:LQs}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[tbh]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c||c|c|c}
 {}
 & $SU(3)_c$ & $SU(2)_L$ & $U(1)_Y$ & $\lambda_{\phi}^\text{Max}
 &$(N_f^2 \lambda_\phi)^\text{Max}$ \\\hline\hline
 %
$h_0^+$ & ${\bf 1}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $1$  &$0.25
                                 &$19\,|_{N_f=25}$ \\\hline
$h_0^{++}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $2$  &$0.27
                                 &$1.1\,|_{N_f=3}$ \\\hline
$\Delta_1$ & ${\bf 1}$ & ${\bf 3}$ & $1$  &$0.27
                                  &$0.77\,|_{N_f=3}$ \\\hline
$\Phi_{1/2}$ & ${\bf 1_H}$ & ${\bf 2}$ & $1/2$ &$0.25$
                                  &$8.5\,|_{N_f=20}$  \\\hline
$s_0^{}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $0$  & $\times$&$\times$
\end{tabular}
\caption{A list of dileptons which couple to leptons.
}
\label{Tab:DLs}
\end{table}

The diquark field in Table~\ref{Tab:DQs} is {\bf 3} or {\bf 6*} representation under the QCD as $(q\overline{q^c})$ states
and {\bf 1} or {\bf 8} representation as $(q\bar q)$ states.
The {\bf 1} representation is nothing but a Higgs doublet in the SM.
Except for color charge assignments, there are five variations of diquarks.
Each of them has specific decay pattern depending on the Yukawa couplings (see \ref{app:bounds}).
Eight possible leptoquark fields are listed in Table~\ref{Tab:LQs}.
All of them are {\bf 3} representation under the color gauge group since they are $(q\overline{\ell^c})$ or $(q\bar\ell)$ states.
In addition to the conventional scalar leptoquarks listed by PDG \cite{PDG},
we here include $R_0^u$, $R_0^d$ and $R_{1/2}^{}$ leptoquarks since we regard $\nu_R^{}$ as the SM fermions.
All possible dilepton fields are given in Table~\ref{Tab:DLs}.
In this class of extended models, we need to introduce additional colored particles $S_c$ in order to guarantee
the sufficiently large production cross section of $gg\to X$.\footnote{
In principle, photon-fusion can be a source of $X$ production if we take photon into account as a parton \cite{PhotonPDF}.
However, it is required to have extremely large $g_{X\gamma}^{}$ coupling at one-loop level. }
In the following, we neglect the contribution to $g_{X\gamma}^{}$ from $S_c$ for simplicity.
This situation is realized if $S_c$ has a relatively small hypercharge.
In \ref{app:bounds}, we give a list of conservative estimates for the lower mass bounds of the new scalar bosons,
which will be compared with the bound derived from theoretical considerations. \\

The scalar potential of each model is generally given by
\aln{ V&
=
-\frac{M_{h}^2}{2}\left(H^{\dagger}H\right)
+M_{\phi}^2\left(\phi^{\dagger}\phi\right)
+\frac{M_{X}^2}{2}X^2
+\mu\left(\phi^\dagger\phi\right)X
+\mu'\left(H^\dagger H\right)X
+\frac{\mu_{X}^{}}{3!}X^3\nonumber\\
&+\lambda\left(H^{\dagger}H\right)^2
+\lambda_{\phi}\left(\phi^{\dagger}\phi\right)^2
+\frac{\lambda_{X}}{4!}X^4
+\lambda'_{\phi}\left(\phi^{\dagger}T_{\phi}^{A}\phi\right)^2
+\lambda''_{\phi}\left(\phi^{\dagger}t_{\phi}^{a}\phi\right)^2
+\lambda'''_{\phi}\left(\phi^{\dagger}T_{\phi}^{A}t_{\phi}^{a}\phi\right)^2\nonumber\\
&+\lambda_{\text{tr}}\left(\phi^{\dagger i}\phi_{j}\right)\left(\phi^{\dagger j}\phi_{i}\right)
+\lambda_{\phi 2}\left(\phi^\dagger\{t_{\phi}^a,t_{\phi}^b\}\phi\right)^2+\lambda_{\text{ad}}\text{Tr}\left(\tilde{\phi}_{\alpha}\tilde{\phi}_{\beta}\right)\text{Tr}\left(\tilde{\phi}^{\alpha\dagger}\tilde{\phi}^{\beta\dagger}\right)+\lambda_{\text{ad}}'\text{Tr}\left(\tilde{\phi}_{i}'\tilde{\phi}_{j}'\right)\text{Tr}\left(\tilde{\phi}'^{i\dagger}\tilde{\phi}'^{j\dagger}\right)
\nonumber\\
&+\kappa_{H\phi}^{} \left(H^{\dagger}H\right)\left(\phi^{\dagger}\phi\right)
+{\kappa'}_{H\phi}^{} \left(H^{\dagger}t_{H}^{a}H\right)\left(\phi^{\dagger}t_{\phi}^{a}\phi\right)
+\frac{\kappa_{HX}^{}}{2} \left(H^{\dagger}H\right)X^2+\frac{\kappa_{\phi X}^{}}{2} \left(\phi^{\dagger}\phi\right)X^2+\cdots,\label{eq:pot1}}
where $\phi$ is one of the scalar fields listed in Tables 1-3, $i(j)$ is the $SU(2)_{L}$ index of $\phi$, $H$ is the SM Higgs doublet field, $t^{a}_{S}\, (a=1$--$3)$ is the $SU(2)_{L}$ generator for $S=H, \phi$,
$T_{\phi}^A\,(A=1$--$8)$ is the $SU(3)_{c}$ generator of $\phi$,
and $\tilde\phi\hspace{1mm}(\tilde{\phi}'):=\sum_{a}\phi^at_{\phi}^a\hspace{1mm}(\sum_{A}\phi^AT^A)$ exists only when the representation of $\phi$ is the adjoint representation.
In the following discussion,
we put
$\mu'=\mu_{X}^{}=\lambda'_{\phi}=\lambda''_{\phi}=\lambda'''_{\phi}=\lambda_{\text{tr}}
=\lambda_{\phi2}=\lambda_{\text{ad}}=\lambda_{\text{ad}}'
=\kappa_{H\phi}^{}={\kappa'}_{H\phi}^{}=\kappa_{\phi X}^{}=0$
at the weak scale for simplicity
\footnote{
These couplings and a large number of flavors (particles) can potentially bring some conflicts with the electroweak precision test (EWPT) \cite{EWPT}. For example, the mixing coupling $\kappa_{H\phi}'$ generates the mass splitting of $\phi$, and contributes to the oblique parameters.
Thanks to our simplified choice of parameters, the constraints from the EWPT are evaded. Furthermore, as for the cubic couplings, they can induce a non-zero vacuum expectation value (vev) of $X$. Such a vev can generally decrease $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}$ because the total decay width of $X$ becomes larger through the possible direct decay $X\rightarrow \bar{H}H$.
As for the scalar quartic couplings, there might be parameter regions such that $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^{}$ becomes larger. For example, when the mixing couplings such as $\kappa_{H\phi}$ are negative, the vacuum stability is not guaranteed any more, but we can rescue it by making other quartic self-couplings positively large. In principle, such choices can increase the upper bound of $\mu$ (see Eq.(\ref{eq:uppermu})). However, we must simultaneously consider the RGE effects of these couplings, and such effects can be stronger than the former. Seeking for some fine-tuned parameter regions is beyond the one-loop analysis of this paper.
}.

As we noted in Introduction, the diphoton decay of $X$ is induced at one-loop level.
The effective coupling $g_{X\gamma}^{}$ is calculated as
\begin{equation}
g_{X\gamma}^{}
=\frac{N_{f}\,\alpha \sum_{\phi} Q^2_{\phi}}{2\pi}\frac{\mu}{M_{X}^2}\,
f(M_{\phi}^2/M_{X}^2),
\label{eq:effcoupling1}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha(=e^2/4\pi)$ is the fine-structure constant, $\sum_{\phi} Q_\phi^2$ stands for summation of $U(1)_{\text{em}}$ charge squared over the multiplet $\phi$ including the color factor,
and $N_f$ denotes the number of flavors of $\phi$.
Because we simplify the scalar potential by taking $\kappa_{H\phi}^{}={\kappa'}_{H\phi}^{}=0$,
components of $\phi$ are degenerate in mass $M_\phi$.
The one-loop integral is easily evaluated as
\begin{equation}
f(x):
=8x\left(\arctan\frac{1}{\sqrt{4x-1}}\right)^2-2.
\end{equation}
The function takes the maximal value $f(1/4)=(\pi^2-4)/2$ at the threshold $M_X=2M_\phi$,
and $\phi$ decouples monotonically for large $M_\phi$, i.e., $f(\infty)=0$.

In order to obtain the large diphoton cross section, the scalar trilinear coupling $\mu$ is required to be large as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:effcoupling1}.
On the other hand, too large $\mu$ is constrained by the vacuum stability.
By focusing on $ M_{X}^2$, $\mu$ and $ \lambda_{\phi}$ terms in Eq.(\ref{eq:pot1}), we have
\aln{
V&\ni
\frac{M_{X}}{2}X^2
+\mu\left(\phi^\dagger\phi\right)X
+\lambda_{\phi}\left(\phi^\dagger\phi\right)^2\nonumber\\
&=\frac{M_{X}^2}{2}\left(X+\frac{\mu}{M_{X}^2}(\phi^\dagger\phi)\right)^2
+\left(\lambda_{\phi}-\frac{\mu^2}{2M_{X}^2}\right)(\phi^\dagger\phi)^2,
}
which leads to
\begin{equation}
\mu^2<2\lambda_{\phi}M_{X}^2\label{eq:uppermu}
\end{equation}
by imposing the stability of the scalar potential at tree level
\footnote{If $X$ has a non-zero vacuum expectation value $\langle X\rangle$, the $(\phi^\dagger\phi) X$ coupling gets another contribution from $(\phi^\dagger\phi) X^2$. However, the total effective coupling $\tilde{\mu}=\mu+\langle X\rangle \kappa_{\phi X}/2$ also follows the same equation as Eq.(\ref{eq:uppermu}). Therefore, our examination Eq.(\ref{eq:maxcs1}) does not change. Moreover, non-zero $\langle X\rangle$ opens up new decay channels such as $X\rightarrow HH$ through the $(H^\dagger H)X^2$ coupling, which leads to the decrease of $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^{}$. Thus, to maximize $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}$, we assume $\langle X\rangle=0$ in this paper.
}.
Eq.~\eqref{eq:uppermu} shows that large $\lambda_\phi$ can help the vacuum stability against $\mu$.

Furthermore, the magnitude of $\lambda_{\phi}$ is also constrained by requiring the perturbativity up to the Planck scale.
It is known that a large quartic coupling constant is a source of the Landau pole at high energy by considering
the renormalization group evolution.
In our setup, in order to ensure the substantial diphoton signal rate, small $\lambda_{\phi}$ is disfavored through the vacuum stability condition. Therefore, $\lambda_{\phi}$ tends to be non-perturbative at high energy.
In Table~\ref{Tab:DQs}, \ref{Tab:LQs} and \ref{Tab:DLs},
we list $\lambda_{\phi}^\text{Max}$ (the maximal values of $\lambda_{\phi}$ at weak scale),
which keeps the purturbativity up to the Planck scale,
in various scalar extended models. The values are calculated using the one-loop RGEs in \ref{app:rge} \footnote{
In our calculation, the contributions from the possible Yukawa couplings are neglected.
Indeed, the new particles decay promptly even for very small Yukawa couplings. On the other hand, if the Yukawa couplings are large, $\lambda_{\phi}^{\text{Max}}$ would be increased.
}.
On one hand, to maximize the diphoton signal rate, larger $N_f$ seems to be favorable.
On the other hand, the perturbativity bounds become more severe.
We determine $(N_f^2 \lambda_\phi)^\text{Max}$, the maximal value of $N_f^2 \lambda_\phi^\text{max}$ where
$\lambda_{\phi}^{\text{Max}}$ is calculated for each $N_f$ by requiring the pertubativity condition up to the Planck scale. In the following, we denote the corresponding $N_f$ as $N_{\text{Max}}^{}$.
Notice that when the $SU(3)_{c}$ representation of ${\bf 6^*}$ and ${\bf 8}$,
the Landau pole of $\lambda_{\phi}$ appears below the Planck scale even
if $\lambda_{\phi}$ is set to be zero at the weak scale, see also Ref.~\cite{LP} for the $SU(2)$ case.

Combining Eqs.(\ref{eq:theoretical cs}), (\ref{eq:effcoupling1}) and (\ref{eq:uppermu}),
we calculate the maximum value of $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}$:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^\text{Max}
=46\text{pb}\times \lambda_{\phi}^\text{Max}
\times\left(\frac{N_{f}\,\alpha \sum_{\phi}Q^2_{\phi}}{2\pi}\,f(M_{\phi}^2/M_{X}^2)\right)^2
\times\left(\frac{750\text{GeV}}{M_{X}}\right)^2.\label{eq:maxcs1}
\end{equation}
In Fig.\ref{fig:scalar cs}, we plot the maximal $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^{}$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:maxcs1})
as functions of $M_{\phi}$ for various scalar extended models.
The left (right) panels show the case with $N_f=1\, (N_\text{Max})$.
The labels $(R_c,2I+1,Y_{\phi})$ denote the representation of the new scalar under the  $SU(3)_{c}$, $SU(2)_{L}$ and $U(1)_{Y}$.
The dashed part of the curves indicates the excluded mass range from the direct collider searches
for $N_f=1$ (see \ref{app:bounds}).
For $N_f=N_\text{max}$, these maximal cross sections are given by the dotted curves,
since we don't know the corresponding experimental bounds (although some of them can be estimated)
.
The shaded region is $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^\text{Max}>1$fb, which can be consistent with the LHC diphoton excesses. \\
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{diquarkcs.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{diquarkNmaxcs.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\\
\\
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{leptoquarkcs.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{leptoquarkNmaxcs.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\\
\\
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{dileptoncs.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{dileptonNmaxcs.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{
The maximal value, $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^\text{Max}$ for the production cross sections
times $\gamma\gamma$ branching ratios, are shown as functions of $M_{\phi}$, the mass of the new SM charged scalar boson.
Each curve shows the value calculated in the different scalar extension models.
The solid (dashed) part of curves is the allowed (excluded) mass range by the collider experiments for $N_f=1$.
For $N_f>1$, the results are given by dotted curves.
The shaded region implies the required cross section from the\hspace{5mm} LHC diphoton excess, i.e., $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^\text{Max}>1$fb.
}
\label{fig:scalar cs}
\end{figure}

In the top panels, the maximal value of $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^{}$ is plotted
for each diquark model. The models with ${\bf 6^*}$ and {\bf 8} representations under the QCD are not presented
because these models do not keep the perturbativity up to the Planck scale.
For diquarks of the {\bf 3} representations, only two representations of $(3,1,-4/3)$ and $(3,3,-1/3)$ with $N_f=1$
can be consistent with the perturbativity and the LHC diphoton excess.
If $N_f>1$, the maximal cross sections are getting larger because these are proportional to $N_f^2$.
On the other hand, excessively large $N_f$ leads the breakdown of the perturbativity of $\lambda_\phi^{}$
before the Planck scale. Even when the perturbativety is kept,
the allowed maximal value of the scalar trilinear coupling $\mu$ becomes smaller.
Furthermore, the increase of $N_f$ makes the experimental bound stronger, so that
the situation does not always become better.

For the leptoquark extensions (middle panels), some of the models can predict large enough $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^{}$,
however, all the representations suffer from severe direct search constraints.
For $N_f=1$, no model fulfills the simultaneous requirements of the perturbativity and the LHC diphoton excess
assuming that the leptoquarks only couple to one generation of the SM fermions.
The situation is not improved for $N_f>1$, because of the stringent experimental bounds.
A leptoquark which mainly decays to a light-quark and a tau lepton pair is less constrained
because of the difficulty of their identifications.
To our knowledge, no corresponding constraint on such a leptoquark is found, and
it might be consistent with these conditions.

For the dilepton extended models, the values of $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^{}$ are relatively small as compared
with the colored scalar models due to the small degrees of freedom.
However, thanks to the weaker experimental mass bounds,
two representations of $(1,3,1)$ and $(1,1,2)$ including the doubly charged Higgs boson
survive both the experimental and theoretical constraints for $N_f=1$.
For larger $N_f$, all models can predict a sufficiently large diphoton cross section with lighter dileptons.
Because of the clean signal of leptonic observable, large $N_f$ would be easily excluded.
It would be nice if the experimental groups release the results for larger mass regions.

From these plots, we find that only a few models with $N_f=1$ can explain the LHC diphoton excess
without conflicting the requirement of the perturbativity up to the Planck scale.
These conditions typically favor the new scalar field with a higher representation of $SU(2)_L$
and a large hypercharge.
In all the allowed models, the required scalars are relatively light, $M_\phi \lesssim 450$~GeV.
Its precision measurement would be a good target at the ILC with the CM energy of $1$~TeV.
The doubly charged scalars in the dilepton multiplets may also be produced at the $e^-e^-$ option
of the ILC if the relevant Yukawa coupling is sufficiently large.

\section{Extensions with New Vector-like Fermions}\label{sec:fermion}
In this section, we consider vector-like fermions instead of the scalar multiplets
discussed in the previous section.
The new fermions are used to be a source of $g_{X\gamma}^{}$ at one-loop level.
Similarly to the scalars,
the representations of the vector-like fermions under the SM gauge group
are fully determined by allowing the tree level decays to the SM particles.
Their quantum charges are listed
in Table~\ref{Tab:VLQs} for vector-like quarks and in Table~\ref{Tab:VLLs} for vector-like leptons.  \\

\begin{table}[tbh]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c||c|c}
 {}
VLQs & $SU(3)_c$ & $SU(2)_L$ & $U(1)_Y$ & $y_\psi^\text{Max}$ &$ (y_{\psi}^{\text{Max}}N_{f})|_{N_f=N_{\text{Max}}}$\\\hline\hline
 %
$T_0$ & ${\bf 3}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $2/3$ & $0.84$&$2.5\,|_{N_{\text{Max}^{}}=5}$ \\\hline
$B_0$ & ${\bf 3}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $-1/3$ & $0.82$&$5.1\,|_{N_{\text{Max}^{}}=13}$\\\hline
$T_1$ & ${\bf 3}$ & ${\bf 3}$ & $2/3$ & $0.80$ &$0.80\,|_{N_\text{Max}^{}=1}$\\\hline
$B_1$ & ${\bf 3}$ & ${\bf 3}$ & $-1/3$ & $0.79$&$0.79\,|_{N_\text{Max}^{}=1}$ \\\hline
$Q_{1/2}$ & ${\bf 3}$ & ${\bf 2}$ & $1/6$ & $0.72$&$1.8|_{N_{\text{Max}^{}}=4}$\\\hline
$T_{1/2}$ & ${\bf 3}$ & ${\bf 2}$ & $7/6$  & LP of $g_{Y}^{}$&LP of $g_{Y}^{}$\\\hline
$B_{1/2}$ & ${\bf 3}$ & ${\bf 2}$ & $-5/6$ & $0.76$&$0.76\,|_{N_\text{Max}^{}=1}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{A list of vector-like quarks which couple to the SM fields.
For $T_{1/2}$, the Landau pole of $g_{Y}^{}$ appears below the Planck scale even for $N_{f}=1$ \cite{hamada-diphoton}.
}
\label{Tab:VLQs}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[tbh]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c||c|c}
 {}
VLLs & $SU(3)_c$ & $SU(2)_L$ & $U(1)_Y$ & $y_\psi^\text{Max}$ & $(y_{\psi}^{\text{Max}}N_{f})\,|_{N_f=N_{\text{Max}}}$\\\hline\hline
 %
$N_0$ & ${\bf 1}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $0$ & $\times$&$\times$\\\hline
$E_0$ & ${\bf 1}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $-1$& $0.73$&$2.9\,|_{N_{\text{Max}^{}}=7}$\\\hline
$N_1$ & ${\bf 1}$ & ${\bf 3}$ & $0$ & $0.77$&$1.8\,|_{N_{\text{Max}^{}}=3}$ \\\hline
$E_1$ & ${\bf 1}$ & ${\bf 3}$ & $-1$& $0.83$& $1.4\,|_{N_{\text{Max}^{}}=2}$\\\hline
$L_{1/2}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & ${\bf 2}$ & $-1/2$ &$0.68$&$3.6\,|_{N_{\text{Max}^{}}=12}$\\\hline
$E_{1/2}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & ${\bf 2}$ & $-3/2$ &$0.82$&$0.82\,|_{N_f=1}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{A list of vector-like leptons which couple to the SM fields. For $N_{0}$,
$y_\psi^{\text{Max}}$ is not presented because it is a SM singlet.
}
\label{Tab:VLLs}
\end{table}

Because all vector-like fermions listed here decay to the Higgs field and the SM fermions,
they must be color triplet or singlet.
Therefore, the allowed decay modes are SM fermions plus $W, Z$ or $H_\text{125}$.
Small Yukawa couplings to the SM fields are sufficient for the prompt decay of the new fermions,
so that we neglect them
in the following discussion, i.e.,
masses of each component of vector-like fermions are degenerate
\footnote{
As a result, the contributions to the electroweak precision test are also negligible.
}.
The experimental bounds on these vector-like fermion masses are summarized in \ref{app:bounds}.
For the leptonic extended models, we implicitly assume the existence of a new colored particle
(with relatively small hypercharge) similarly to the color-singlet scalar extensions. \\

Let us move to the calculation of the diphoton signals of $X$.
In the following, we denote one of the vector-like fermions in Tables \ref{Tab:VLQs} and \ref{Tab:VLLs} by $\psi$.
We consider the following two typical Yukawa interactions between $X$ and $\psi$:
\begin{equation}
{\cal{L}} \ni
-M_\psi\bar{\psi}\psi
-\begin{cases}
y_\psi^{}\, X \bar{\psi}\psi&(\text{scalar type})\\
i\,y_\psi^{}\, X \bar{\psi}\gamma_{5}\psi&(\text{pseudoscalar type})
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
Because of this new Yukawa coupling, $X$ can decay to $\gamma\gamma$ at the one-loop level.
The effective coupling $g_{X\gamma}^{}$ is as follows:
\begin{equation}
g_{X\gamma}^{}
=\frac{2N_{f}\, \alpha \sum_{\psi_i}Q_{\psi_i}^2}{\pi}\frac{y_\psi^{}}{M_{X}}
\times
\begin{cases}f_{S}^{}(M_{\psi}^2/M_X^2) & (\text{scalar type})\label{eq:effcoupling2}\\
f_{PS}^{}(M_{\psi}^2/M_X^2) & (\text{pseudoscalar type})
\end{cases},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
f_{S}^{}(x):=
2 \sqrt{x} \left((1-4 x)\, \arctan\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{4 x-1}}\right)^2+1\right),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}  \label{fPS}
f_{PS}^{}(x):=
2 \sqrt{x}\, \arctan\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{4 x-1}}\right)^2.
\end{equation}
Both functions take the maximal value at the threshold, $f_S^{}(1/4)=1$ and $f_{PS}^{}(1/4)=\pi^2/4$,
and decrease as $f_S^{}\sim1/(3\sqrt{x})$ and $f_{PS}^{}\sim1/(2\sqrt{x})$ for large $x$.
As a result, for the pseudoscalar case, $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}$ is about $(\pi^2/4)^2 \approx 6$ times larger than
that of the scalar case around the threshold, and $(3/2)^2=2.25$ times larger in the heavy fermion limit.

As well as the scalar extension cases, the maximal value of $y_\psi^{}$ can be determined
by imposing the perturbativity up to the Planck scale.
The one-loop RGE of $y_\psi^{}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{dy_\psi^{}}{dt}=
\frac{y_\psi^{}}{16\pi^2}\left((6 n_\psi^{} N_{f}+3) y_\psi^2
-6 g_2^2 C_2(n_\psi^{})-6 g_Y^2 Y_\psi^2-8 g_3^2\right)\label{eq:yukawarge1}
\end{equation}
for vector-like quarks, and
\begin{equation}
\frac{dy_\psi^{}}{dt}=
\frac{y_\psi^{}}{16\pi^2}\left((2 n_\psi^{} N_{f}+3) y_\psi^2
-6 g_2^2 C_2(n_\psi^{})-6 g_Y^2 Y_\psi^2\right)\label{eq:yukawarge2}
\end{equation}
for vector-like leptons.
Here, $n_\psi^{}(=2I_\psi^{}+1)$ is the $SU(2)_{L}$ representation of $\psi$,
$C_{2}$ is the Casimir index, and $Y_\psi$ is the $U(1)_{Y}$ hypercharge of $\psi$.
The RGEs of the gauge couplings are presented in \ref{app:rge}.

In Tables \ref{Tab:VLQs} and \ref{Tab:VLLs}, we list $y_\psi^\text{Max}$
(the maximal values of $y_\psi^{}$ at the weak scale) in various vector-like fermion models.
For these models, $N_{\text{Max}}$ is determined by the perturbativity bound
of the SM gauge couplings
\footnote{Here, note that $N_{\text{Max}}$ is determined independently of $y_{\psi}$ because the Landau pole of $y_{\psi}$ never appears as long as it is zero at the weak scale.
}.
We then evaluate $y_\psi^\text{Max}$ for $N_f=N_\text{Max}$.
The corresponding maximal values of $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}$ can be calculated
by substituting $y_\psi^\text{Max}$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:effcoupling2}) and using Eq.(\ref{eq:theoretical cs}). \\

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{scalarquark.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{scalarquarkNmax.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\\
\\
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{pseudoquark.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{pseudoquarkNmax.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The maximal cross sections $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^\text{Max}$ in vector-like quark extension models
are given as functions of the mass $M_{\psi}$ of the vector-like quarks.
The curves and shaded region are shown in a similar manner to the scalar extensions. }
\label{fig:quark cs}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{scalarlepton.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{scalarleptonNmax.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\\
\\
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{pseudolepton.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{pseudoleptonNmax.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The maximal cross sections $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^\text{Max}$ in the vector-like lepton extension models
are presented as functions of the mass $M_{\psi}$  of the vector-like leptons. }
\label{fig:lepton cs}
\end{figure}

In Figs.~\ref{fig:quark cs} and \ref{fig:lepton cs},
we show the maximal cross sections $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^\text{Max}$ in the vector-like quark and lepton extension models
as functions of $M_{\psi}$, respectively.
For the left (right) panel, the results for $N_f=1\, (N_\text{Max})$ are given similarly to the figures of the scalar extended models.
The two cases of the scalar and pseudoscalar Yukawa couplings, are presented in the upper and lower panels.

In the vector-like quark extensions, we do not show the result for the $(3,2,7/6)$ representation
because the Landau pole appears in the running of the hypercharge gauge coupling.
For the rest, if the Yukawa coupling is the scalar type, two representations of $(3,3,2/3)$ and $(3,3,-1/3)$ are consistent with the
requirements of the perturbativity, the explanation of the LHC diphoton excess, and the LHC direct search bound.
In the case of the pseudoscalar type, thanks to the enhancement in the loop integral,
a representation of $(3,2,-5/6)$ is rescued even when $N_f=1$.
Furthermore, two more representations of $(3,2,1/6)$ and $(3,1,2/3)$ are saved by considering many flavors.
In contrast to the scalar extensions, the situation gets better for large $N_f$,
because $y_\psi^\text{Max}$ is not so sensitive to $N_f$.\footnote{The reason is as follows. When $y_{\psi}$ and $N_{f}$ are relatively large, the RGE of $y_{\psi}$ is roughly $dy_{\psi}/dt\sim N_{f}y_{\psi}^3/16\pi^2$ from Eq.(\ref{eq:yukawarge1}) or Eq.(\ref{eq:yukawarge2}). However, by the redefinition $y_{\psi}:=N_{f}^{-1/2}\tilde{y}_{\psi}$, we can see that $\tilde{y}_{\psi}$ follows the RGE when $N_{f}=1$. Therefore, $y_{\psi}^{\text{Max}}$ is roughly given by $N_{f}^{-1/2}\tilde{y}_{\psi}=N_{f}^{-1/2}y_{\psi}^{\text{Max}}|_{N_{f}=1}^{}$, and the effect of $N_{f}$ is not much strong.
}
It should be noted that the decoupling behavior is slower than the case of the scalar extension
due to the different loop integral, so that relatively heavy vector-like quark can predict
sufficiently large $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^{}$.

For vector-like leptons, the experimental mass bounds are very loose because of the small production cross section.
As we summarize in \ref{app:bounds}, only the electron and muon decay channels have been searched.
All of the vector-like lepton could be as light as a half of the diphoton resonance mass $M_X$.
As in the left-top panel of Fig.\ref{fig:lepton cs},
the representations of $(1,2,-3/2)$, $(1,3,-1)$ and $(1,3,0)$ can be consistent with all conditions
for the scalar type Yukawa coupling with $N_f=1$.
For the pseudoscalar case, all the models survive thanks to the largeness of $f_{PS}$, Eq.~\eqref{fPS}.
By considering $N_f>1$, the required cross sections are easily satisfied.

These fermionic extensions only demand relatively heavy fermions unlike scalar extended models.
Such heavy fermions would be beyond the scope at the LHC.
In order to test the origin of the LHC diphoton excess completely, we may need to go to a further high energy frontier.

\section{Conclusions and Discussion}\label{sec:summary}

We have studied perturbatively safe scenarios for the LHC diphoton excesses.
The excess can be interpreted by a new scalar boson $X$
with $M_X=750$~GeV which decays to a pair of photons.
A simple scenario is realized by introducing new scalar bosons
or
fermions charged under the SM gauge group.
The effective dimension-five interactions of $X$ and photons (gluons) are induced at one-loop of the new particles.
In order to generate a sufficiently large effective interaction,
large coupling constants are needed between $X$ and the new particles.
On the other hand, such coupling constants are severely constrained by the theoretical consistencies of the model;
We have investigated the stability bound of the scalar potential
and the pertubativity conditions up to the Planck scale.

We have considered the cases with diquark, leptoquark, and dilepton multiplets for the scalar extensions,
where all scalars can decay into the SM fermions at tree level.
Some of the diquark and dilepton extensions can be consistent with all theoretical and experimental requirements
while all the leptoquark extensions are ruled out due to the stringent direct search bounds.
Increase of the number of new scalars helps the situation better if we choose appropriate $N_f$.
All allowed models predict the new light scalar boson with a mass less than $450$~GeV,
which would be a very nice scope of the ILC.

We have also examined the vector-like fermion extensions, which can mix the SM fermions through the mass matrix.
For fermionic extensions, most models can simultaneously realize the LHC diphoton excesses and the perturbativity up to the Planck scale without contradicting the direct search mass bounds.
A larger cross section for $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}^{}$ can be readily obtained
by considering the pseudoscalar Yukawa couplings instead of scalar ones.
The number of new vector-like fermion multiplets is less important to the perturbativity bounds,
so that many flavors of the new fermions can enhance the diphoton cross section in contrast to the scalar extensions.
Because of the above two reasons, heavy vector-like fermions are sufficient to explain the LHC diphoton excesses.

In conclusion, interpretations of the new exciting results by simple scenarios are the first step
for understanding the beyond the SM.
As a next step, the requirements of the theoretical consistencies
such as the stability and the perturbativity are good criteria for constructing a consistent theory.

\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Fellows
No.25$\cdot$1107 (YH) and No.27$\cdot$1771 (KK).
K.T.'s work is supported in part by the MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas No. 26104704.

\section*{Note added}
When we have been finishing our work, Ref.~\cite{Bae:2016xni} appeared on the arXiv, which partially overlaps with our work.


\section*{\bibname\markright{\MakeUppercase{\bibname}}}}
\newtheorem{theorem}{}[section]
\newtheorem{algorithm}[theorem]{}\newtheorem{axiom}[theorem]{}\newtheorem{case}[theorem]{}\newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{}\newtheorem{conclusion}[theorem]{}\newtheorem{condition}[theorem]{}\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{}\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{}\newtheorem{criterion}[theorem]{}
\newtheorem{exercise}[theorem]{}\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{}\newtheorem{notation}[theorem]{}

\newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{}\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{}
\newtheorem{solution}[theorem]{}\newtheorem{summary}[theorem]{}\newtheorem{acknowledgement}{}

\linespread{1}

\def\@biblabel#1{\hspace*{-\labelsep}}

\newcommand{\mathbb}{\mathbb}
\newcommand{\mathbf}{\mathbf}
\newcommand{\partial}{\partial}

\newcommand{\epsilon}{\epsilon}
\newcommand{\phi}{\phi}
\newcommand{\gamma}{\gamma}
\newcommand{\eta}{\eta}
\newcommand{\mu}{\mu}
\newcommand{\nu}{\nu}
\newcommand{\pi}{\pi}
\newcommand{\chi}{\chi}
\newcommand{\sigma}{\sigma}
\newcommand{\xi}{\xi}
\newcommand{\theta}{\theta}
\newcommand{\zeta}{\zeta}
\newcommand{\omega}{\omega}
\newcommand{\Psi}{\Psi}
\newcommand{\Delta}{\Delta}
\newcommand{\Phi}{\Phi}
\newcommand{\Gamma}{\Gamma}
\newcommand{\Upsilon}{\Upsilon}
\newcommand{\Xi}{\Xi}
\newcommand{\Theta}{\Theta}
\newcommand{\Omega}{\Omega}

\renewcommand{\a}{\alpha}
\renewcommand{\b}{\beta}
\renewcommand{\d}{\delta}
\renewcommand{\i}{\iota}
\renewcommand{\k}{\kappa}
\renewcommand{\l}{\lambda}
\renewcommand{\L}{\Lambda}
\renewcommand{\P}{\Phi}
\renewcommand{\r}{\rho}
\renewcommand{\S}{\Sigma}
\renewcommand{\t}{\tau}
\renewcommand{\u}{\upsilon}
\renewcommand{\c}{\gamma}

\renewcommand*{


\section{INTRODUCTION}

Jets are a phenomenon of collimated plasma ejecta shooting out from a localized region in the low solar atmosphere. They have been observed in optical, (extreme) ultraviolet (UV/EUV), and X-ray with various sizes, speeds, and durations \citep{Savcheva2007, Nishizuka2011, Tian2014}. Jets usually show a strong tendency to recur, suggesting their association with a prolonged process of magnetic flux emergence and cancellation at their bases \citep{Kurokawa1993, Liu2004}. Observations \citep{Shibata1992, Canfield1996, Liu2009} and MHD simulations \citep{Archontis2005, Nishizuka2008, Pariat2009} support a scenario in which a jet is driven by magnetic reconnection between newly emerging magnetic fluxes and overlying ambient magnetic fields of opposite polarity. This process could result in a configuration for reconnection at a three-dimensional (3D) magnetic null point, connected by a fan-like separatrix surface and a spine along which the reconnected field lines approach or recede from the null \citep[][see, e.g., Fig.~1 of Liu et al. 2011 and Fig.~5d of this paper]{Lau1990, Antiochos1998}. Signatures of such a ``fan-spine'' topology have been reported in various contexts that involve magnetic reconnection, including X-ray jets \citep{Shibata1994, Shimojo1996}, anemone-like active regions \citep{Asai2008}, and ``circular-ribbon'' flares \citep{Masson09, Wang2012, Liu2015}.

For small-scale chromospheric jets, however, direct observations of fan-spine structures are rather rare, although the existence of a fan-spine structure is strongly implied by the frequently observed inverted-Y-shaped feature of the jet's base \citep{Shibata2007, Nishizuka2008} and in one case, a dome-shaped jet's base outlined by coronal-rain-like flows \citep{Liu2011}.

\ion{He}{1} imaging at 10830~\AA{} has proven to be an excellent method for observing plasma with temperatures characteristic of the upper chromosphere and transition region ($>$20,000 K), since the formation of 10830~\AA{} requires the intermediary of collisional excitation to a high energy level and/or a sufficiently high EUV radiation field serving the same purpose. One mechanism is photo-ionization followed by recombination \citep[the ``PR'' mechanism;][]{Zirin75}, in which neutral helium can be ionized by high-energy photons (shortward of 504~\AA{}) and then recombine to the excited $n=2,3$ levels of orthohelium. Another mechanism appeals to the rapid collisional mechanism (CM) in which atoms are excited, before having a chance to be ionized, by electrons with temperatures higher than those expected in ionization equilibrium \citep{Jordan75,Andretta00,Pietarila04}.

Here we exploit high-resolution (0$''$.16) 10830~\AA{} imaging utilizing the New Solar Telescope (NST) to resolve the fan-spine structure in a small-scale chromospheric jet event. The instruments and data reduction are discussed in Section 2. Section 3 presents observational results using the NST and other instruments in EUV and X-rays. In Section 4, we consider implications and interpretation of these data.

\section{OBSERVATION AND DATA REDUCTION}

On 2012 July 8, we used the 1.6 meter aperture NST at the Big Bear Solar Observatory \citep[NST/BBSO;][]{Goode12, CaoWD10b} to observe NOAA active region (AR) 11515, which was located close to the west solar limb. NST's off-axis design eliminates any central obscuration, vastly reducing stray light. High spatial resolution images were obtained by using a broad band filter (bandpass: 10~\AA) containing the well-known TiO lines, as well as a narrow band filter (bandpass: 0.5~\AA) placed in the blue wing of the \ion{He}{1} 10830~\AA{} multiplet. Images in H$\alpha$ line center and blue wing ($-$0.8~\AA{}) were also acquired for comparison.

The 10830~\AA{} Lyot filter was made by the Nanjing Institute for Astronomical and Optical Technology. This narrow-band filter was tuned to $-$0.25~\AA{} relative to the two blended, strongest components of the multiplet (at 10830.3~\AA), making the filtergram capable of imaging fine details of the chromospheric material and meanwhile, capturing the underlying photospheric features. This is also very helpful for co-aligning with other instruments. A high sensitivity HgCdTe CMOS IR focal plane array camera \citep{CaoWD10a} was employed to acquire the 10830~\AA{} data at a cadence of 10~s. With the aid of high order adaptive optics and speckle reconstruction based post-processing method \citep[the KISIP code;][]{Woger07, Cao10c}, images with diffraction limited angular resolution ($\dfrac{\lambda}{D}$) in the three bands were achieved ($\sim$$0\farcs16$ for 10830~\AA{}).

This event was observed by the Atmosphere Imaging Assembly \citep[AIA;][]{Lemen12} on board the {\it Solar Dynamic Observatory} \citep[{\it SDO};][]{Pesnell12} and the X-Ray Telescope \citep[XRT;][]{Golub2007} on board Hinode \citep{Kosugi2007}, which covered a broad temperature range of the jet material ($\sim$1 MK to $>$ 10 MK). The {\it Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager} \citep[{\it RHESSI};][]{LinRP02} and the Gamma-ray Burst Monitor \citep[GBM;][]{Meegan2009} aboard the \textit{Fermi} Gamma-ray Space Telescope also observed this event in hard X-rays (HXRs). RHESSI images are reconstructed using the PIXON algorithm \citep{Hurford2002} based measurements from detectors 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 with 40-s integration. White-light continuum images from the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager \citep[HMI;][]{Scherrer2012} on board SDO were used as the intermediary for co-aligning the AIA and NST images. The accuracy of the co-alignment is expected to be better than $0\farcs6$.

\section{RESULTS}

The repetitive jet event under study occurred around the east edge of the leading sunspot in AR 11515 between 18:19-18:50 UT. Fig.~1 shows images of the jet in 10830~\AA{} (panels a and x), TiO (panel y), H$\alpha$(panel z), EUV (panel b), and soft X-ray (SXR; panel c). The jet was located near the footpoint of a closed coronal loop system as shown in the XRT Al-thick image (Fig.~1c). The second row of Fig. 1 shows a closer view of the jet's base (green box in Fig.~1a), rotated by 110$^{\circ}$ counterclockwise to an upright orientation.
The jet's base ($\sim$10$\arcsec$ wide) appears as a fan-like structure in the 10830~\AA{} filtergram (Fig.~1x), spanning over the penumbral regions of a spot with positive magnetic polarity (Fig.~1y). This structure can also be distinguished in the H$\alpha$ blue wing images, which are, however, badly saturated thus not shown here. Significantly, this structure is totally absent from all AIA EUV images, indicating that its temperature is well below coronal values. The footpoints of the fan-like loops in 10830~\AA{} coincides very well with footpoint brightenings in AIA 171~\AA\ images (yellow contours in Fig.~1x), suggesting strong heating in the footpoint area.

The evolution of the jet event can be generally divided into two major steps separated by $\sim$20 minutes as delineated in the space-time plot of the AIA 304~\AA\ intensity (Fig.~1d; obtained at a slice shown as the dashed line in Fig.~1a). The onset of each step was characterized by a strong footpoint emission in 304~\AA, which correlated well with impulsive peaks in the 1--8~\AA\ soft X-ray (SXR) derivative (from GOES, the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite) and the 12--25 keV HXR count rate from Fermi/GBM. This correlation suggests that the jet's evolution was closely associated with electron acceleration and/or strong plasma heating processes \citep{Kane1979,Fletcher2001b}.

Fig.~2 shows the evolution of the jet in the first step observed in 10830~\AA{}, AIA 304~\AA, and H$\alpha$ line center (an animation is available online: stepI.mpg). The jet is visible in 10830~\AA{} as a dark outgoing ejecta, which appears bright in 304~\AA\ and H$\alpha$. With NST's unprecedentedly high resolution, a fan-like structure is clearly seen at the jet's base in the 10830~\AA{} images, consisting of multiple individual loops. The loop system on the left side of the jet is brighter than that on the right, appearing as an unresolved brightening in the 304~\AA\ images (blue arrows in Fig.~2). The evolution of the fan-like loops suggests that magnetic reconnection is likely occurring between the loop systems on the left- and right-side of the jet. To visualize this, we select a curved slice along the fan structure (dashed line in Fig.~2b) and obtain a space-time plot of the 10830~\AA{} intensity (Fig.~4a). At $\sim$18:21:10 UT, two tracks with opposite slopes (directed by red arrows) appear at the slice location of 8$''$ in the space-time plot (white arrow in Fig.~4a). These two tracks correspond to bi-directional plasma outflows ($\sim$30 km~s$^{-1}$) emanating from a common region. In the 10830~\AA{} image, this region is located near the apex of the fan-like structure between the left and right loop systems (marked by an ``x'' symbol in Fig.~2b), presumably the site of magnetic reconnection. The time when the bi-directional outflows occurred coincides very well with the footpoint brightening seen in 304~\AA\ (c.f., Fig.~1d).

The second step starts from 18:39 UT, $\sim$20 minutes after the first step (an animation is available online: stepII.mpg). In contrast to the first step, the 304~\AA\ intensity at the jet's base is dominated by the emission at the right side of the jet (Fig.~3d-f). In 10830~\AA{} images, again, the AIA brightening near the footpoint is resolved as a bundle of small-scale loops. The fan-like surface is clearly visible at the jet's base, composed of alternating black and white fibrils with thickness of $\sim$0.3$''$ (Fig.~3a). A dark spine could be observed near the center of the jet, which becomes more evident in 10830~\AA{}, H$\alpha$, and AIA EUV after 18:41 UT (indicated by white arrows in Fig.~3). This dark spine extends further downward across the fan structure and rooted at the photosphere, representing as the ``inner spine'' in the fan-spine reconnection geometry (c.f., Fig~5d). The foot of the inner spine is co-spatial with a H$\alpha$ brightening (indicated by a blue arrow in Fig.~3g) and a footpoint X-ray source (observed by RHESSI at 6--12 keV, green contours in Fig.~3d). During the late phase of step 2, bright loops form at the right side of the jet spine in 10830~\AA{} (Fig.~3c), whereas a curtain-like surge (5$''$ across) extends to the left side, which appears dark in 10830~\AA{} and bright in EUV 304 and H$\alpha$. Similar to the first step of the jet event, space-time plots obtained across the jet (Fig.~4b, slice 2 in Fig.~3c) show bi-directional flows ($\sim$20 km s$^{-1}$) emanating from a common site near the apex of the fan structure (``x'' symbol in Fig.~3c), which is likely the location of the magnetic null point.

\section{DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS}

We present high-resolution NST observations of a small-scale recurrent jet event using the \ion{He}{1} 10830~\AA{} filter, which is sensitive to upper chromospheric temperatures. The NST observations were complemented by EUV and X-ray data from SDO/AIA, Hinode/XRT, and RHESSI, covering a broad temperature range from $\sim$1 MK to $>$10 MK.

The NST \ion{He}{1} images reveal detailed structures of the recurrent jet event. In particular, the jet at each step consists of an elongated spine along the direction of ejection and a fan-shaped arc at the base, closely matching the fan-spine reconnection geometry for jet production. The fan-shaped arc at the base is only 10$''$ wide, spanning over the penumbral region of a spot of dominating positive magnetic polarity. According to the reconnection picture, the inner spine of the jet (seen in \ion{He}{1} in absorption) that connects to the magnetic null point should be rooted in a newly emerged magnetic flux with negative polarity. It is difficult, though, to confirm this using HMI line-of-sight magnetogram directly, because the negative polarity region was presumably very small and the event occurred near the limb. However, there is multiple evidence supporting the fan-spine reconnection scenario: First, the root of the inner spine coincides with localized H$\alpha$, EUV, and X-ray emissions at the same location (c.f., Fig.~3, indicated by the blue arrow), suggesting intense heating at the root, by either precipitated particles or thermal conduction, which is associated with magnetic reconnection at the null point. Second, bi-directional plasma flows are observed at the onset of each step. They originate from a common region located near the apex of the fan structure, which is probably the site of the magnetic null point where reconnection occurs. This region is located at $\sim$1800 km above the jet footpoints (the projection effect is minimal as the jet event occurred near the limb), probably embedded in the upper chromosphere. Depending on the local Alfv$\acute{e}$n speed, these bi-directional plasma flows, with an observed speed of $\sim$20-30 km s$^{-1}$, could be either direct reconnection outflows or secondary pressure-driven flows expelled from the reconnection site.

We conclude that the observed features in the two major steps of the jet evolution are consistent with the two-step magnetic reconnection scenario of jets proposed by \citet{Torok2009}, as depicted in the two schematic cartoons in Fig.~5: The first step starts when reconnection occurs between the emerged negative magnetic flux and the ambient, unipolar field (Fig.~5c). Reconnected loops shrink downward to the left side of the null point and are heated by the released energy (pink patch). The energy released from reconnection also drives heated plasma from the null point upward along the spine field lines, seen as the jet material in EUV, 10830~\AA{}, and H$\alpha$ (Fig.~2 left column; shaded pink in Fig.~5c). Simultaneously, cool plasma is also ejected from the right side of the jet spine due to magnetic tension force induced by the newly reconnected field lines, also known as the ``slingshot effect'' \citep[][shaded gray in Fig.~5c]{Shibata1994, Canfield1996, Takasao2013}.

The second step corresponds to a fully-developed state of the fan-spine reconnection geometry, when the magnetic loops at the left side of the null point also reconnect with the ambient fields on the right (Fig.~5d). During this step, the reconnected loops are visible on both sides and form a complete fan-shaped structure, separated by an inner spine near the center (Fig.~5b). The dark and bright fibril-like loops consisting of the fan structure (in 10830~\AA{}) represent a mixture of heated and cooled loops formed by the repeated reconnection process at the magnetic null point (Fig.~5b). The reconnection also produces accelerated particles and/or thermal conduction fronts, which propagate along the inner spine and result in strong footpoint X-ray emissions (blue patch in Fig.~5d).

We attribute our clear detection of the fan-spine structure to not only NST's superb sub-arcsec resolution, but also the special emission conditions for the 10830~\AA{} line. The fan is completely absent in all AIA and XRT bands but clearly visible in \ion{He}{1}, suggesting that the fan should consist of plasma of upper chromospheric temperatures ($\le$20000 K) to which AIA and XRT are not sensitive. The \ion{He}{1} emission is interpreted as being from the radiation of helium atoms in a metastable level excited by thermal collisions (i.e., the CM mechanism). The PR mechanism of \ion{He}{1} emission is not favored for our case since there is insufficient EUV emission in the fan.

In both steps, the outer spine is observed as a collimated jet consisting of both hot and cool material. This is likely associated with the magnetic reconnection site being embedded in the cool chromosphere: plasma is heated and propelled by the released magnetic energy and meanwhile, cool chromospheric plasma is ejected
due to the sling-shot effect of the reconnected field lines. The inner spine, on the other hand, represents field lines directly connecting the opposite polarity footpoint with the magnetic null point. Its dark appearance in all filters  (10830~\AA{}, H$\alpha$, and EUV) suggests a density depletion at the locus of the inner spine. This is possibly associated with strong heating at the null point combined with efficient thermal conduction along the inner spine field line. This scenario is supported by the existence of a $>$10 MK X-ray source at the footpoint of the inner spine. However we could not completely rule out the possibility of the dark inner spine being associated with a cool filament-like structure that is fortuitously aligned with the jet direction, causing an absorption feature in all bands.

To summarize, the sub-arcsecond resolution of the NST, combined with the unique sensitivity of the 10830~\AA{} line to upper chromospheric plasma of certain temperatures, provide a clear view of a chromospheric jet event with a fan-spine geometry. Although numerous cases of chromospheric jets have been reported with an anemone or inverted Y-shape, our observations, for the first time, reveal nearly every element of the fan-spine structure predicted in the theoretical jet model. The evolution of the jet observed in 10830~\AA{}, H$\alpha$, EUV, and X-ray wavelengths is consistent with a two-step reconnection scenario for jet formation. Our results will motivate further studies on chromospheric jets using high-angular-resolution observations, as well as more detailed modelling approaches.

\acknowledgements {}

The BBSO operation is supported by NJIT, US NSF AGS-1250818, and NASA NNX13AG14G grants. The NST operation is partly supported by the Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, Seoul National University, and the strategic priority research program of CAS with Grant No. XDB09000000. We thank Antonia Savcheva and Hui Tian for helpful discussions. We acknowledge the support of the US NSF AGS-0847126, NSFC-11333009, NSFC-11428309, AFOSR (FA 9550-15-1-0322), and NASA under contract SP02H1701R from Lockheed-Martin to SAO and contract NNM07AB07C to SAO.