format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the last two years, there has been a resurgence of interest in CP-violating phases in supersymmetric theories. Although in many cases the size of the CP-violating phases is strongly constrained by limits on the electric dipole moments (EDMs) of the electron, neutron and 199Hg atom, possible cancellations between different contributions to the EDMs can significantly weaken the upper bounds on the phases , even potentially allowing phases of $`𝒪(1)`$ , typically in small, often finely tuned regions. This observation has led to an explosion of papers exploring the consequences of the presence of large phases, many papers finding some regions of parameter space where large phases are of consequence to the system under study, but few papers simultaneously imposing the (still severe) constraints from EDMs. One of the most interesting questions is whether one will be able to measure the phases in chargino and neutralino production at a future linear collider . Even if one expects that weakly interacting supersymmetric partners are going to be found at the Tevatron and at the LHC , the model parameters have to be determined in detail in a precision experiment. A future high luminosity Linear Collider is the optimal tool to extend the LEP Standard Model precision measurements to other models. The CP-conserving set of underlying MSSM parameters can be easily determined from physical masses alone, cross sections and asymmetries . The effects of CP-violating phases on neutralino and chargino observables can be considerably smaller and therefore require a more ambitious collider energy and luminosity .

In this paper we reexamine this question, taking into account the limits from EDM experiments, including the recent improved limits on the 199Hg EDM . We perform a detailed scan of parameter space in the general (non-unified) MSSM, including phases and masses, to find the regions satisfying the EDM constraints. Using these constraints we show how the phase $`\varphi _1`$ can be extracted from a set of CP-even variables (masses and total cross sections) at a future Linear Collider. Compared to the previous analysis  we can reduce the requirements on the energy as well as on the luminosity of the Linear Collider. Moreover, we show how one could use an extended set of parameters, which allows for an independent extraction of $`|\mu |`$, and further relax the requirement on the Collider design parameters. Finally, we construct CP-odd variables at $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders. We find that the CP asymmetry is typically about $`0.11.5\%`$.

## 2 CP Violation and Electric Dipole Moments

The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) contains several sources of CP violation not present in the Standard Model. In the most general flavor non-preserving SUSY model, there are over 40 new complex phases , although most of the new parameters are very strongly constrained by limits on flavor violating processes. We assume a Peccei-Quinn symmetry  which sets the coefficient $`\overline{\theta }`$ of the $`\stackrel{~}{G}G`$ term to zero, up to small corrections coming from higher dimensional CP-violating operators, which shift the minimum of the axion potential . In the MSSM, new complex phases arise in the Higgs mixing mass $`\mu `$, as well as in the soft SUSY-breaking terms in the Lagrangian: the trilinear scalar mixing masses $`A_i`$, the bilinear Higgs mixing parameter $`B`$, and the three gaugino mass parameters $`M_i`$. Not all of these phases are physical, however, and some or most may be removed by field redefinitions, depending on the model. In mSUGRA, for example, the phases $`\varphi _i`$ of all the $`M_i`$ may be removed by an R-rotation111Under an R-rotation of the fields, the $`A_i,B`$ and $`M_i`$ effectively pick up a common phase, while the other soft SUSY breaking masses and $`\mu `$ are left unchanged. at the unification scale $`M_X`$, the $`A_i`$ are united to a common $`A_0`$ at $`M_X`$, and a rotation of one of the Higgs fields can be used to set $`\theta _\mu +\theta _B=0`$, so that the Higgs vevs are real. This leaves only two physical phases in mSUGRA, which can be taken to be $`\theta _{A_0}`$ and $`\theta _\mu `$.

In more general models, where the $`M_i`$ do not unify, only one of the gaugino phases can be rotated away, which we take to be the phase of $`M_2`$. In our more general analyses, we will also take independent phases in the trilinear parameters $`A_e,A_u,A_d`$ and $`A_t`$. This leaves us with seven physical phases in our most general model. We emphasize that these are the phases present after phases have been removed in the field redefinitions described above. Therefore when we constrain below the phase of the $`\mu `$ parameter to be very small, it is in fact some combination of the phases in the original parameterization which is restricted. This is particularly important in models where there is a correlation between the phase of $`B`$ and the other phases in the model, such as in mSUGRA, as we discuss further below.

It is well known that the additional sources of CP violation in supersymmetric models can contribute to the electric dipole moments of the neutron and electron  and mercury atom . The very tight experimental limits on these quantities

$`d_n`$ $`<`$ $`1.1\times 10^{25}e\mathrm{cm}`$ (1)
$`d_e`$ $`<`$ $`4\times 10^{27}e\mathrm{cm}`$ (2)
$`d_{\mathrm{Hg}}`$ $`<`$ $`2\times 10^{28}e\mathrm{cm}`$ (3)
then impose severe constraints on the CP-violating phases in SUSY models. To suppress the EDMs, either large scalar masses ( $`>1`$ TeV) or small phases (of the order $`10^3`$, when all SUSY masses are of order 100 GeV) are typically required. However, as pointed out in , such large scalar masses are cosmologically problematic, and the addition of cosmological constraints to the mix implies that (some of) the CP-violating phases are constrained to be quite small when the LSP is a dominantly $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$-type neutralino.

The electron EDM receives contributions from chargino and neutralino exchange diagrams, shown in Fig. 1. The full expressions for the dependence of the induced electron EDM on the SUSY masses and phases can be found in . The dominant contribution is typically from the chargino exchange diagram and is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mu `$. Thus the primary constraint coming from the electron EDM limits is an upper limit on the phase of $`\mu `$.

The subdominant neutralino exchange piece has a more complicated dependence on the SUSY phases, including both pieces proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma _e`$, where $`\gamma _e=\mathrm{arg}(A_e+\mu ^{}\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$. Cancellations can occur between the neutralino chargino exchange contributions, and this serves to weaken the absolute limits on the SUSY phases, although $`\theta _\mu `$ of $`𝒪(1)`$ requires either severe fine-tuning of parameters or a very heavy spectrum, as we will see below.

The neutron EDM is considerably more complicated, and until recently, the computation  of the neutron EDM induced by SUSY phases has been plagued by very large theoretical uncertainties. The SUSY phases contribute both to the EDMs and color EDMs (cEDMs) of the quarks, and in the last year, the contribution to the neutron EDM both from the induced $`\overline{\theta }`$ due to the color EDMs of the quarks  and from the quark EDMs and cEDMs themselves  have been reliably calculated using QCD sum rules, allowing a reduction in the theoretical uncertainty. The overall effect is to reduce slightly the predicted neutron EDM, and with smaller error bars.

The quark EDMs receive contributions from the chargino and neutralino exchange diagrams of Fig. 1 (where the photon can now also connect to the sfermion line in the chargino diagram), as well as from the gluino exchange diagram of Fig. 2. The gluino exchange contribution to the $`d`$-quark EDM is proportional to $`\gamma _d=\mathrm{arg}(A_d+\mu ^{}\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$ (for the $`u`$-quark take $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{cot}\beta `$). There are also significant contributions to the neutron EDM from the color dipole moments of the quarks, which have the same dependence on the phases at the quark EDMs, and are of the same order as the contribution from the induced $`\overline{\theta }`$ term described above. The neutron EDM written in terms of the quark EDMs and cEDMs (which can be found in ) is given in . Lastly, there is also a small contribution from the three-gluon operator $`O_G=\frac{1}{6}f^{abc}G_aG_b\stackrel{~}{G}_c`$ . Two-loop contributions to the EDMs may be significant at very large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ . For the values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we consider, the effect of higher order contributions will be to very slightly shift the allowed regions of parameter space.

For the 199Hg atom, the electric screening of the electric dipole moments of the atom’s constituents is violated by the finite size of the nucleus and can be conveniently expressed by the Schiff moment $`S`$, which parameterizes the effective CP-odd interaction between the electron and nucleus of spin $`I`$. The Schiff moment, in turn, can be induced either through the Schiff moment of the valence nucleons or through the breaking of time reversal invariance in the nucleon-nucleon interaction, the latter being enhanced by the collective effects in the nucleus, and hence is dominant. The largest contributions to the Schiff moment, and hence to the EDM of mercury, are through the color EDMs of the quarks, and the expression for $`d_{\mathrm{Hg}}`$ in terms of the quark cEDMs can be found in . We emphasize that the mercury, electron and neutron EDMs all depend on different combinations of phases, and so simultaneously imposing all three EDM constraints excludes a much greater portion of the CP-violating SUSY parameter space than from imposing any single constraint.

Again, the EDMs generated by the SUSY phases are sufficiently small if either 1) the phases are very small ($`<10^210^3`$), or 2) the SUSY masses are very large ($`𝒪`$ (a few TeV)), or 3) there are large cancellations between different contributions to the EDMs, or by a combination of these effects. It is condition 3), large cancellations between different contributions to the electric dipole moments, which has spurred the greatest interest recently, since it ostensibly allows for both large amounts of CP violation and a spectrum which is phenomenologically relevant. Such cancellations are not easy to achieve, however. If the phases are $`𝒪(1)`$ and the SUSY masses are in the 100 GeV range, then the EDM limits will be violated by several orders of magnitude unless very delicate cancellations between the various contributions exist. Further, the parameters must be tuned so that similarly delicate cancellations occur for electron and neutron and Hg EDMs.

In some models it is impossible to achieve sufficient cancellations in all three EDMs to permit some phases to be $`𝒪(1)`$, but even so, the effect of cancellations may still be significant. For example, cancellations do occur naturally in mSUGRA models over significant regions of parameter space , including in the body of the cosmologically allowed region with $`m_{1/2}=𝒪(100400\mathrm{GeV})`$. With a $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$-type neutralino LSP, large sparticle masses cannot be invoked to permit large phases, due to limits on the LSP relic abundance , and so the phases, in particular $`\theta _\mu `$, are severely limited by the EDMs. The presence of cancellations relaxes the constraints on the phases, but the limit on $`\theta _\mu `$ remains small, $`\theta _\mu <\pi /10`$, unless the sfermions (including selectrons) are heavier than $`𝒪`$ (1 TeV). This upper bound on $`\theta _\mu `$ is over an order of magnitude less restrictive than what would find in the absence of any cancellations, however, and thus the effect of cancellations is quite significant. We will discuss the role of cancellations in the MSSM in more detail in Section 3.2.

Minimal SUGRA is a particularly restrictive model in that there are only two new physical phases. In more general models there are more phases, and studies have been made to examine the new cancellations which the presence of additional phases allow, particularly in models without gaugino mass unification, where the gaugino masses $`M_i`$ can have independent phases (see e.g. ). The possibility of having both $`𝒪(1)`$ phases and reasonable sparticle masses in these models has inspired a remarkable number of recent papers exploring the consequences (phenomenological and cosmological) of new large sources of CP violation in SUSY models. Most of these analyses take the possibility of cancellations as carte blanche to consider all sets of masses and phases, without actually imposing the rigorous constraints on the SUSY parameters from the electric dipole moments. In the next section we will examine the size of the phases one may reasonably expect to satisfy the EDM constraints, and for what sparticle masses, in both mSUGRA and in two more general models without gaugino mass unification. In particular, we will study the level of tuning required to obtain large phases.

## 3 EDM Analysis

We begin by studying the constraints imposed by the EDMs in three different models: one mSUGRA-inspired model with two physical phases, and two models without gaugino mass unification, which have seven independent phases each and 15(23) total free parameters, including masses. We have done large Monte Carlo studies for each case, evaluating roughly 800,000 parameter sets in mSUGRA and 300 and 600 million sets in each of the two more general models respectively, and studied the configurations which satisfy the experimental limits on the EDMs. Table 1 displays the number of parameter sets studied and total number of points satisfying the EDM constraints (1)-(3).

### 3.1 mSUGRA-inspired Model

After performing the field redefinitions described in Section 2, the mSUGRA-like model is specified by 6 parameters: three masses ($`m_0,m_{1/2},`$ and $`A_0`$), two phases ($`\theta _\mu (M_X)`$ and $`\theta _A(M_X)`$), and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Throughout we take $`m_{\mathrm{top}}=175`$ GeV. In mSUGRA, once the gaugino, soft scalar masses, $`A`$ and $`B`$-terms and phases are given at $`M_X`$, they can be evolved using the renormalization group equations (RGE) to the electroweak scale. As in common practice, we use the one-loop RGEs for the masses and two-loop RGEs for the gauge and Yukawa couplings . The structure of the equations for the gauge couplings, gaugino masses and the diagonal elements of the sfermion masses are such that they are entirely real. The evolutions of the $`A_i`$, however, are more complicated, as the $`A_i`$ pick up both real and imaginary contributions. For example, the evolution of $`A_t`$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dA_t}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}g_3^2M_33g_2^2M_2{\displaystyle \frac{13}{9}}g_1^2M_1+h_b^2A_b+6h_t^2A_t\right).`$ (4)
Thus, $`A_t`$ receives real contributions proportional to the gaugino masses $`M_i`$ and complex contributions from the heavy generation $`A_i`$, multiplied with the respective Yukawa coupling $`h_i`$. Since the coefficients of the $`M_i`$ are flavor dependent and the coefficients of the $`h_f^2A_f`$ terms are generation dependent, the phases (and magnitudes) of the $`A_i`$ must therefore be run separately. At one loop, the evolution equation for $`\mu `$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu }{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{16\pi ^2}}\left(3g_2^2g_1^2+h_\tau ^2+3h_b^2+3h_t^2\right),`$ (5)
and the phase of $`\mu `$ does not run. Finally, the $`B`$ parameter evolves as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dB}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\left(3g_2^2M_2g_1^2M_1+h_\tau ^2A_\tau +3h_b^2A_b+3h_t^2A_t\right).`$ (6)
After evolving the parameters to the weak scale, the phase of Higgs superfield $`H_2`$ (which gives mass to up-type fermions) can be rotated in such a way as to ensure real expectation values for the Higgs scalars. The rotation changes the phase of $`H_2`$ by an amount $`(\theta _\mu +\theta _B)`$. Not only is the phase of $`\mu `$ now fixed at $`\theta _\mu =\theta _B`$, but also the initial phase of $`\mu `$ is physically irrelevant as it is canceled by the rotation. As emphasized in , a large phase in $`A`$ will induce a phase in $`B`$ (Eq. (6)), and hence in $`\mu `$ , after the vevs are made real. Therefore even if $`\mu `$ and $`B`$ are both real at $`M_X`$, if $`\theta _A`$ is large, the value of $`\theta _\mu (M_Z)`$ contributing to the EDMs may be large (of course this is completely equivalent to keeping the Higgs vevs complex and $`\mu `$ real). Since $`B`$ is a free parameter, which is typically determined by the conditions of correct electroweak symmetry breaking, $`B(M_X)`$ can be chosen so that $`B\mu (M_Z)`$ is nearly real, yielding a small $`\theta _\mu (M_Z)`$ after the Higgs rotation; however, this can involve a significant fine-tuning if $`\theta _A`$ is large . In practice, this tuning is typically not worse than at the level of 10% , but it must be emphasized that this is a tuning over-and-above the tuning discussed below. Alternatively, if $`\theta _B(M_X)`$ is taken real  and $`\theta _A`$ is large, or if $`\theta _B(M_X)`$ is arbitrary, then the additional fine tuning lies in adjusting the original $`\theta _\mu ^0`$ close to $`\theta _B(M_Z)`$.

To study the phases permitted by the current experimental limits (1)-(3) on the neutron, electron and 199Hg EDMs, we perform a Monte Carlo studies, sampling the 6 model parameters in the following ranges:

| 0 $``$ | $`\theta _\mu ,\theta _A`$ | $``$ $`2\pi `$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 50 GeV $``$ | $`m_{1/2}`$ | $``$ 1 TeV |
| 0 GeV $``$ | $`A_0`$ | $``$ 1 TeV |
| 0 GeV $``$ | $`m_0`$ | $``$ 1 TeV |
| 2 $``$ | $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ | $``$ 10 |

and keeping parameter sets satisfying (1)-(3). Limits from particle searches have not been imposed. However, the lower limit on $`m_{1/2}`$ was chosen to remove most of the area excluded by the current LEP chargino mass limit of 103 GeV. Most of the solutions with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <3`$ are excluded by the Higgs searches at LEP. Cosmological limits on the relic abundance of the LSP neutralino, which tend to exclude regions with $`m_0>200`$ GeV, have also not been included, we will comment on these regions later.

The results for our Monte Carlo scan of 800,000 mSUGRA parameter sets are summarized in Fig. 3, where we display the 10,000 sets222To reduce the file size in this and following plots, we do not display points lying underneath covered regions, particularly at low $`\theta _\mu `$. This produces no visible effect on the plots. satisfying the three EDM constraints (1)-(3). Fig. 3a shows the allowed configurations of $`\{\theta _\mu ,\theta _A\}`$. The first obvious point to note is that the range of $`\theta _\mu `$ is severely limited, with no events in this sample having $`|\theta _\mu |>0.1\pi `$ (mod $`\pi `$), while the phase $`\theta _A`$ can take any value. This is due to the fact that the chargino contribution to the electron EDM is typically dominant and depends only on $`\theta _\mu `$; therefore for large $`\theta _\mu `$, the neutralino exchange piece cannot provide sufficient cancellation, regardless of the values of $`\theta _A`$. In Figs. 3b-3d, we display the value of $`\theta _\mu `$ versus $`m_{1/2}`$, $`m_0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, respectively. We see that there are many more solutions for large $`m_{1/2}>500`$ GeV, where the heavy spectrum reduces the individual contributions to the EDMs. We note, however, that almost all such parameter sets lead to a neutralino relic abundance $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}h^2>0.3`$ , implying a universe younger than 12 billion years, in contradiction to observational evidence . In Fig. 3d, we see that most of the large $`\theta _\mu `$ solutions occur also for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <3`$, which in mSUGRA yield a Higgs scalar too light to be compatible with the negative results from Higgs searches at LEP . Indeed, if we consider only those parameter sets with $`m_{1/2}<500\text{GeV}`$, $`m_0<200\text{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >3`$, we find no solutions with $`\theta _\mu >\pi /20`$.

### 3.2 15-parameter MSSM

We next consider a more general model which has additional independent phases, and which therefore has greater opportunity for cancellations. We no longer require gaugino mass unification. Therefore, one of the three gaugino masses may still be made real by an R-rotation, but the other two, which we take to be $`M_1`$ and $`M_3`$, may be complex, with phases $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ respectively. We additionally allow independent phases in $`A_d`$, $`A_u`$, $`A_e`$ and $`A_t`$, and along with $`\theta _\mu `$, this gives 7 independent phases. The other 8 parameters are $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, plus the masses: $`|M_i|,i=1\mathrm{}3,`$ a common $`|A_i|=|A|,i=e,d,u,t,|\mu |,`$ and the sfermion mass parameters $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_R}^2`$. We fix the remaining masses by the approximate relations $`m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_R}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2+0.6M_2^2,`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}^2+0.5M_2^2`$. We then sample the regions

| 0 $``$ | $`\theta _\mu ,\varphi _i,\theta _{A}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}`$ | $``$ $`2\pi `$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 100 GeV $``$ | $`\mu `$ | $``$ 1 TeV |
| 100 GeV $``$ | $`2M_1,M_2,M_3`$ | $``$ 1 TeV |
| 0 GeV $``$ | $`|A|`$ | $``$ 1 TeV |
| 0 GeV $``$ | $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R},m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_R}`$ | $``$ 1 TeV |
| 2 $``$ | $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ | $``$ 10 |

and look for parameter sets satisfying (1)-(3). We cut out the (few) remaining sets with $`m_{\chi ^\pm }<103\text{GeV}`$, and we flag the sets with $`m_h<113\text{GeV}`$, as discussed below.

Again, because of the additional possibilities for cancellations in this parameterization, we expect solutions with larger values of the phases which still satisfy the EDM constraints (1)-(3). This is borne out in Figs. 4-6, where we display the results for our Monte Carlo scan of roughly 300 million points in the 15-parameter MSSM. In the top two panels of Fig. 4 we display the 23,500 sets allowed by the EDMs, in the $`\{\theta _\mu ,\varphi _1\},`$ and $`\{\theta _\mu ,\varphi _3\}`$ planes, respectively. Although by far the greatest events of solutions have $`\theta _\mu <\pi /10`$, there is now a visible swath that extends to large values of $`\theta _\mu `$. The range of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ are unconstrained, as are the ranges of the $`\theta _{A_i}`$ (not displayed). The presence of the large $`\theta _\mu `$ solutions relies on having large sparticle masses, significant cancellations between contributions to the EDMs, or small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and very typically a combination of the above.

In Fig. 4 we display $`\theta _\mu `$ versus $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for the parameter sets, and we see clearly the weakened constraint on $`\theta _\mu `$ at low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. However, most of the low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ solutions are actually experimentally excluded by the unsuccessful Higgs searches at LEP2. To be conservative, we take the stop soft masses to be independent parameters and set them to 1 TeV, take $`m_A=1\text{TeV}`$, and we compute the light Higgs mass as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the maximal mixing scenario using Ref. . The light (green) points in all four panels of Fig. 4 yield $`m_h<113\text{GeV}`$ (corresponding to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <2.4`$). Hence, they would require large phases and further tuning in the Higgs sector not to be excluded by LEP . In Fig. 5, we display $`\theta _\mu `$ as a function of the light ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$) and heavy ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+`$) chargino masses. The chargino exchange contribution to the fermion EDMs and cEDMs  is suppressed both for highly split charginos and for a heavy chargino spectrum. We see that if neither chargino is heavy ($`m_{\chi ^\pm }<500\text{GeV}`$), $`\theta _\mu `$ is strongly constrained, whereas if at least one of the charginos is heavy, $`\theta _\mu `$ can potentially be large. In particular, having a spectrum with only one light chargino does not by itself forbid $`\theta _\mu >\pi /10`$.

The significance of cancellations on the allowed range of $`\theta _\mu `$ is seen in Fig. 6. In the first panel we display the value of $`\theta _\mu `$ versus the ratio the the chargino ($`d_e^C`$) and neutralino ($`d_e^N`$) exchange contributions to the electron EDM. We see the clustering of the large $`\theta _\mu `$ solutions near to the cancellation point $`d_e^C/d_e^N=1`$. The vertical lines correspond to an electron EDM a factor of 5 smaller than the larger of $`d_e^C`$ and $`d_e^N`$, due to cancellations. This demonstrates that the sparticles must be much heavier than those allowed by our range of parameters ($`>1\text{TeV}`$) in order for the EDM constraints to be satisfied for large $`\theta _\mu `$ in the absence of any cancellations. In practice, the large $`\theta _\mu `$ solutions have both some sparticle masses near the upper end of their ranges and a large degree of cancellations. In the second panel of Fig. 6, we display $`\theta _\mu `$ as a function of the sfermion mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e_R}}`$. Perhaps counter-intuitively, the large $`\theta _\mu `$ solutions tend to lie at lower $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$, rather than near the upper end of their range. However, this is again due to the necessity for cancellations: $`m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}1\text{TeV}`$ is not large enough to sufficiently turn off the SUSY contributions to the electron EDM for large $`\theta _\mu `$, and the necessary cancellations only occur for smaller slepton masses.

One goal of this paper is to study the extent to which the large phase solutions require a significant tuning of the model parameters in order to fall into the regions of EDM cancellations. The tuning measure we employ is simple but intuitive. For every parameter set we find which satisfies the EDM constraints, we perform the following analysis. We begin by varying all the input parameters (one at a time) by $`\mathrm{\Delta }X/X=\pm 0.5\%`$ and see if the EDM limits are still satisfied for all the test parameter sets. If they are, we then try varying all the input parameters by $`\pm 1\%`$, and so on, until we find the smallest percentage change for which the configuration violates one of the EDM bounds. This gives a sense of the local “size” of the allowed parameter region. The results for the 15-parameter MSSM scan are displayed in the final panel of Fig. 4, where we have stepped through 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 20% and 50% changes, modulo $`\pi `$ in the case of phases, and the last percentage change to the underlying parameters that successfully satisfies the EDM bounds is plotted versus $`\theta _\mu `$. Points which do not survive a 1% change are not plotted in the last panel of Fig. 4, although they are plotted in all the other figures. It is clear that the large $`\theta _\mu `$ solutions require more tuning that the low $`\theta _\mu `$ solutions. Overall, we find that $`\{27\%,46\%,74\%\}`$ of the (large plus small $`\theta _\mu `$) solutions require worse than $`\{1\%,2\%,5\%\}`$ tuning (corresponding to {the unplotted points, points at 0.01, points at 0.02} in the last panel of Fig. 4). The tuning level of the solutions can also be seen in the other panels of Figs. 4, where the open circles have tuning worse than at the level of $`1\%`$.

We emphasize the importance of having a third independent constraint on the phases, from the 199Hg EDM. Fig. 7 shows the result of a smaller scan of the 15-parameter space in which we only impose the limits from the electron and neutron EDMs and plot $`\theta _\mu `$ vs. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for the resulting set. The light (green) points are those which would be forbidden by the further imposition of the 199Hg EDM constraints, while the dark (black) points are those which satisfy the 199Hg EDM constraints. The open circles yield $`m_h<113\text{GeV}`$. We find that of the 174,000 points satisfying the neutron and electron EDM constraints (of which only 50,000 are plotted), only 4700, or 2.7%, additionally satisfy the 199Hg EDM constraint. The remaining points at large $`\theta _\mu `$ typically have a very heavy squark ($`>800\text{GeV}`$) or two heavy charginos ($`>500\text{GeV}`$). Clearly, ignoring  the 199Hg EDM constraints allows many configurations that are experimentally forbidden, particularly for low to moderate values of the masses, and for larger values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ combined with large phases, where the regions satisfying the electron and neutron EDM constraints are small. Given the significant effect of the mercury constraint, an improved calculation of the strength of the $`T`$-odd nuclear forces  and Schiff moment of the mercury nucleus  will likewise be important.

We also emphasize the significance of the recent improved calculation of the neutron EDM . In Fig. 8 we display the values of the neutron EDM as computed using QCD sum rules in  against those estimated using naïve dimensional analysis (NDA), as in . Here we have plotted just those sets for which the neutron EDM constraint is satisfied according to either one or both of the calculational methods. We see that NDA typically overestimates the neutron EDM by roughly a factor of two, although for solutions near regions of cancellations, the discrepancy between the two can be much greater.

### 3.3 23-parameter MSSM

We lastly consider a very general model with 23 free parameters. We now allow the left and right sfermion masses to vary independently, and we take independent stop masses in computing the neutron EDM. We also take the phase and magnitude of all the $`A_i,i=e,d,u,t`$ as independent, giving a total of 7 phases, 15 mass parameters and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as the free parameters of the model. We perform a Monte Carlo scan of roughly 600 million parameter sets, over the following ranges:

| 0 $``$ | $`\theta _\mu ,\theta _{M_i},\theta _{A_i}`$ | $``$ $`2\pi `$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 100 GeV $``$ | $`\mu `$ | $``$ 1 TeV |
| 100 GeV $``$ | $`2M_1,M_2,M_3`$ | $``$ 1 TeV |
| 0 GeV $``$ | $`|A_i|`$ | $``$ 1 TeV |
| 0 GeV $``$ | $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L}`$,$`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$ | $``$ 1 TeV |
| 0 GeV $``$ | $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}`$,$`m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_R}`$,$`m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}`$ | $``$ 1 TeV |
| 0 GeV $``$ | $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L^3}`$,$`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$ | $``$ 1 TeV |
| 2 $``$ | $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ | $``$ 10 |

In Fig. 9 we display the 10,000 parameter sets satisfying the EDM constraints (1)-(3). The results are very similar to those in the case of the 15-parameter MSSM.

## 4 Mass and Cross Section Measurements

We now turn to the actual determination of the phase parameters at a future Linear Collider . In an earlier work  it was shown that large phase values, as well as the real parameters in the neutralino/chargino sector, can be extracted to high accuracy from measured masses and cross sections, using a global fit. Their extraction from a much reduced set of observables, such as the neutralino and chargino masses alone, appears to be impossible, due to experimental uncertainties propagating from the measurement of masses and cross sections into the fitted phase parameters. Only if the uncertainty is considerably smaller than the actual phase value, do we regard the phase as being observable.

### 4.1 Complete Set of Observables

The central scenario in our analysis is a generic set of MSSM parameters derived from the unified model parameters $`m_{1/2}=200\text{GeV}`$, $`m_0=100\text{GeV}`$, $`A_0=0`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4`$, and $`\mu >0`$. The neutralino/chargino mass parameters are $`|M_1|=83\text{GeV},M_2=165\text{GeV}`$ and $`\mu =310\text{GeV}`$, and the corresponding slepton masses are $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}=180\text{GeV}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=132\text{GeV}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}=166\text{GeV}`$. The masses of the neutralinos and charginos are given in Table 2. For the phase values $`\varphi _1=\theta _\mu =\pi /10,`$ this scenario was investigated in our previous analysis: the error on the fitted mass parameters $`|M_1|,M_2,|\mu |`$ is smaller than $`1\text{GeV}`$, and the error on the extraction of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is less than $`10\%`$. The RMS of the phase determination depends on the energy and the luminosity of the collider. For a ($`500\text{GeV},500\text{fb}^1`$) machine we obtain $`\varphi _1/\pi =0.1\pm 0.03`$ and $`\theta _\mu /\pi =0.1\pm 0.05`$, whereas for ($`1\text{TeV},1000\text{fb}^1`$), the errors are $`\varphi _1/\pi =0.1\pm 0.05`$ and $`\theta _\mu /\pi =0.1\pm 0.06`$333For both colliders the masses are determined in a threshold scan. For higher energy and fixed masses the cross sections decrease. Increasing the luminosity does not compensate for the increase in energy in this case.. The $`t`$-channel slepton masses are assumed to be measured in threshold scans, and the propagation of the uncertainty of their mass measurements into the phases can be neglected. We find that the statistical errors on the phase determination $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _10.03\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _\mu 0.05\pi `$ are essentially independent of the central values of the phases. This implies that even with a maximal set of observables, phase values smaller than $`\pi /10`$ are hidden by experimental errors and are therefore unobservable: CP phases of that size could, from a collider phenomenology point of view, as well be zero.

A naïve view of the inversion problem is given by the graphs in Fig. 10. We fix the parameters in the neutralino and chargino mass matrices and plot the production cross section $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)`$ and the branching fraction BR $`(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^+e^{})`$ as a function of the phase $`\varphi _1`$. The dependence on $`\varphi _1`$ is strong in both observables and an analysis could be straightforward. However, the plots also show that the physical masses in the process are not constant with varying phases, either. The main problem of the analysis therefore becomes the separation of direct effects of the phase and indirect effects, where the phase changes the physical neutralino masses and these affect the cross sections and branching fractions.

Hence, a key ingredient of the full analysis  as well as of the one presented in this paper is the measurement of masses through threshold scans . We use the error estimates for an mSUGRA scenario with $`m_0=100\text{GeV}`$, $`m_{1/2}=200\text{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4`$. They are $`0.05/0.07/0.3/0.6\text{GeV}`$ for the neutralino masses and $`0.035/0.25\text{GeV}`$ for the chargino masses . We furthermore assume the uncertainty of cross section measurements to be purely statistical. This limits the pull of small cross sections. The invisible cross section for the production of two lightest neutralinos (LSPs) is not part of our sample. For a high energy collider, the full analysis includes twelve cross section and six mass observables, determining six model parameters: $`|M_1|,M_2,|\mu |,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\varphi _1,\theta _\mu `$.

### 4.2 Inclusion of the EDM limits

To cover a large range of slepton masses, we consider two modifications of the central scenario: (1) the first generation sleptons are still light but just escape detection at a low energy collider. The so increased slepton masses correspond to having their $`m_0=200\text{GeV},m_{1/2}=200\text{GeV}`$, i.e. $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}=250\text{GeV}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=218\text{GeV}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}=240\text{GeV}`$. (2) All sleptons decouple from the theory entirely, which corresponds to masses above $`𝒪(1\text{TeV})`$. The cross sections accessible at a $`400\text{GeV}`$ collider are given in Table 2 for all three sets of lepton masses. This collider energy enables us to observe one higgsino type neutralino directly, whereas the other two higgsino states are kinematically inaccessible. The cross sections are dominated by the $`t`$-channel process due to the gaugino nature of the light neutralino. In contrast, the production of two light charginos involves both diagrams: for light sleptons, the $`t`$-channel graph is large whereas in the decoupling limit the $`s`$-channel contribution dominates; for intermediate slepton masses destructive interference reduces the cross section by almost a factor of two. Still, the chargino cross section is by far the largest. If the lightest chargino mass is known through a threshold scan, this signature should serve to determine the mass of the sneutrino with high precision .

Using the results of the EDM analysis allows us to modify the full analysis described in the previous section: we know that the phase $`\theta _\mu `$ has to be smaller than $`\pi /10`$, after taking into account three conditions: (1) the experimental limits on the electron, neutron and mercury EDM have to be respected simultaneously; (2) the degree of fine tuning is limited by requiring that the solutions be stable with respect to changes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }X/X=1\%`$ in all model parameters; (3) a minimal set of final states is produced at a Linear Collider with a fixed design energy, e.g. $`400\text{GeV}`$. We will show that this minimal set of observables has to include a handle on one higgsino component, to allow for a determination of $`\mu `$. Under these assumptions, we try to determine CP-violating phases at a comparably low energy collider, which would not cover all neutralino/chargino and slepton thresholds. The reduced set of observables is supplemented by EDM constraints: $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ has to be small ($`<10`$), and may be known from the Higgs sector  if the Higgs bosons are sufficiently light. Since $`\theta _\mu `$ turns out to be constrained to be smaller than its minimum visible value $`\pi /10`$ , we fix it to zero. The phase $`\varphi _1`$ can be treated as independent of all other parameters in the neutralino and chargino mass matrices, since parameters correlated to $`\varphi _1`$ by the EDM constraints, like $`\varphi _3`$ or $`\varphi _A`$, do not appear in this sector.

To determine the phases we modify our full analysis: the set of observables is first reduced to the three lightest neutralinos and the lightest chargino. Producing them in pairs yields four cross sections, i.e. eight independent observables. In the fit, we determine the real parameters $`|M_1|,M_2,\mu ,\varphi _1`$ as well as two $`t`$-channel selectron masses. For a low energy collider, the selectron masses cannot be expected to be measured in threshold scans, and this leaves us with altogether six unknown model parameters. Using $`SU(2)`$ symmetry the sneutrino mass can be related to the left handed selectron mass:

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2+m_W^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _w\mathrm{cos}2\beta .$$
(7)
In contrast to the complete parameter fit, the extraction is now limited by the number of fitted parameters, and the $`\chi ^2`$ distribution of the best fit might be flat in certain parameters. This makes it technically difficult to add $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to the set of fitted parameters, and we have to rely on a measurement in the Higgs sector. However, in principle one can extend the number of observables by non-trivial distributions, asymmetries or additional cross sections, and one can choose a fitting algorithm better suited for the problem to include $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the fit .

### 4.3 Statistical Uncertainties

The inclusion of experimental errors follows the same path as in the previous analysis : we assume Gaussian errors for the measured masses and cross sections and define smeared pseudo-measurements. First we define a set of ‘true’ model parameters $`|M_1|,M_2\mathrm{}`$ They predict a set of ‘true’ observables (masses and cross sections), all of which are assumed to have a Gaussian error distribution with a known width . Using these distributions, we randomly vary 10000 pseudo-measurements of the set of observables. These sets become slightly inconsistent, but using a global fit we can extract the central value of every model parameter and obtain a distribution for each of them444Extracting these values from the low energy parameters without the smearing would merely serve as a check of the fitting program.. In the fit we minimize $`\chi ^2=_i(x_{\mathrm{reconstr},\mathrm{i}}x_{\mathrm{meas},\mathrm{i}})^2/e_\mathrm{i}^2`$, where $`x_{\mathrm{reconstr}}`$ are the reconstructed observables and $`x_{\mathrm{meas}}`$ are the smeared pseudo-measurements. The error on the cross sections is given as a function of the luminosity by $`e_\mathrm{i}=\sigma _\mathrm{i}/(ϵ)`$, where the efficiency is assumed to be $`ϵ=10\%`$. If the central value of the distribution for a given parameter agrees with its ‘true’ value, the statistical treatment is justified, and the width of the distribution describes the migration of observational errors into the model parameters. The final curve does not necessarily have to be Gaussian, since correlations, together with the range of the fit, can alter the shape of the curve. Hence, we quote the RMS value instead of the standard deviation of a fitted Gaussian distribution. We note that for some scenarios there exist several $`\chi ^2`$ minima in different parameter regions. This is a technical complication, and the minima should be distinguishable through the actual values of $`\chi ^2`$. In these cases, we limit our range of fitted parameters, making sure that the range is much bigger than the distribution we finally obtain.

The distribution of best fits to a set of 10000 pseudo-measurements is given in Fig. 11. In contrast to the earlier analysis we assume $`\theta _\mu =0`$ and rely on a known value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The sleptons are kinematically inaccessible, and their masses have to be indirectly determined from the cross section measurement. Comparing the errors on the three mass parameters $`|M_1|,M_2,\mu `$ we notice the striking accuracy of the measurement of $`M_2`$. This reflects the small number of unknown parameters in the chargino mass matrix and in the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production cross section: the phase $`\theta _\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are both fixed, and only $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$ and the sneutrino mass have to be determined from the chargino mass and cross section. However, if one is able to determine the cross sections for polarized electrons and positrons and separate the $`s`$ and $`t`$-channel contributions, this accuracy will improve even further. On the other hand, if one is forced to determine $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ from the neutralino/chargino sector, the error on $`M_2`$ will be $`𝒪(1\text{GeV})`$ again. In contrast to the full analysis, the fitted values of $`|M_1|`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ are now correlated. Correlations like that are a general feature of a smaller set of observables and a smaller dimension of the fit. The error on the determination of the slepton masses is not symmetric: the left selectron mass is tied to the sneutrino mass and therefore extracted from the well determined chargino sector. The right selectron mass, in contrast, has to be determined from the neutral gaugino cross sections, which are smaller by almost one order of magnitude.

The distribution of best fits for $`\varphi _1`$ exhibits a similar shape to the result of the full analysis. For large luminosity of $`500\text{fb}^1`$ it approaches a Gaussian with a RMS of 0.032 and a fitted standard deviation of 0.028. At smaller luminosity, this distribution broadens, e.g. to a RMS value of 0.037 for $`300\text{fb}^1`$, as given in Table 3. From the cross sections in Table 2 one can see that there is a minimal luminosity at which the number of events in $`(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0)`$ becomes marginal. In this case there will be hardly any information on $`\mu `$ left in the sample. The same problem arises once the energy is too small to produce a state with significant higgsino content. If the higgsinos are almost entirely decoupled, the uncertainty on the real mass parameters becomes too large to extract the phases. Technically, the correct minimum in $`\chi ^2`$ will not be found then by the fitting procedure. In Figure 10 we see that for many observables the point $`\varphi _1=0`$ is extremal, i.e. a considerable number of best fits will give this result. This occurs for example in the case of low luminosity, Fig. 11. On the other hand we notice that in the set of observables under consideration, the gaugino sector is still over-determined: except for the less important slepton masses the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ production cross section carries similar information as the much larger $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ cross section. Removing the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ cross section from the sample increases the RMS value given in Table 3 to 0.036 ; however, in most models $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ will be visible at any collider that produces pairs of light charginos.

### 4.4 Systematic Uncertainties

As mentioned above the errors derived above do not take into account any systematical errors from using a wrong value e.g. of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Neither do they include an estimate what would happen if $`\theta _\mu `$ were actually small but non-zero. Both effects would lead to systematic errors and thereby to wrong central values of the 10000 fits. In Table 3 we show that fitting a set of parameters with a ‘true’ value $`\theta _\mu =\pi /20`$, but assuming $`\theta _\mu =0`$ hardly affects the fit. This observation serves as a consistency check of the ansatz, namely that a small $`\theta _\mu `$ has no effect on the extraction of $`\varphi _1`$ and certainly not on the dominating real parameters in the mass matrices. Analyzing the set of observables with a wrongly assumed values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3.8`$ or $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4.2`$ instead of a ‘true’ value of 4.0 leads to the systematic error shown in Fig 12: the spread of the best fits in the mass parameters as well as in the phase is very similar to the case where both parameters, $`\theta _\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are input correctly, but the central values are shifted. The central values for wrongly assumed values $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3.8`$ and $`4.2`$ become $`\varphi _1/\pi =0.125\pm 0.033`$ and $`\varphi _1/\pi =0.082\pm 0.029`$, i.e. they are shifted by half the RMS value.

To estimate the dependence of the analysis on the details of the underlying model, we decouple the sleptons from all cross sections. From the cross sections in Table 2, we see that the real mass parameters dominated by the physical chargino/neutralino masses and the chargino cross section should be extracted as precisely as in the case of light sleptons. However, the determination of the phase $`\varphi _1`$ relies on the measurement of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$ cross section, where the $`Z`$ boson in the $`s`$-channel production process for neutralinos only couples to the higgsino fraction of the physical states. Since in our central scenario the light neutralinos are mainly gauginos, both of these cross sections decrease with increasing slepton masses. This leads to a RMS value of $`0.044`$ of the $`\varphi _1`$ distribution, as seen in Table 3.

An important feature of the complete analysis  is that the error on the $`\varphi _1`$ measurement is independent of the actual value of $`\varphi _1`$. This allows us to derive lower limits on the size of observable phases, which are $`\varphi _1>\pi /10`$ and $`\theta _\mu >\pi /10`$ for the complete analysis. As presented in Table 3, we obtain RMS=$`0.030`$ for a central value of $`\varphi _1=\pi /2`$. In Figure 10, the cross section, as well as the branching fraction, tends to vary strongly around phase values of $`\pi /2`$, while they become flat and extremal for positive or negative real values of $`M_1`$. This is reflected in the slightly smaller RMS value for $`\varphi _1=\pi /2`$ as compared to $`\varphi _1=\pi /10`$.

From the cross sections in Table 2 it is obvious that the determination of $`\varphi _1`$ from the given set of cross sections improves, once $`\mu `$ takes a value closer to the gaugino mass parameters. Reducing it by a factor of two to $`\mu =150\text{GeV}`$ leads to a much lighter higgsino with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}=158\text{GeV}`$ and an increased cross section for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$ production. The changes in the masses of the gaugino dominated light neutralinos are small, but the error on the $`\varphi _1`$ measurement improves to 0.014.

Although it is hard to accommodate with the EDM constraints, we investigate a scenario with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$: from the full analysis we expect the determination of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to be less precise than for smaller values. Since all production cross sections are smaller by up to $`50\%`$, the extraction of the slepton masses becomes increasingly difficult. From the analysis for small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, however, we know that the error on the determination if the right selectron mass is larger than the mass difference between the two selectrons. One way of improving the fit for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is therefore to assume that the selectrons are mass degenerate. With this assumption we are able to determine the phase $`\varphi _1=0.11\pm 0.03`$.

### 4.5 Minimal Set of Observables

Since the EDM constraints on $`\theta _\mu <\pi /10`$ require the chargino sector to be essentially CP-conserving, we can define a minimal set of observables sufficient to extract the phases: in the CP-conserving case one could be able to extract $`|\mu |`$ sufficiently precisely from a set of the mass, cross section and asymmetries in $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$ production analytically . We use this result to investigate the phases in the neutral gaugino sector, including the masses and production cross sections of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$. In our central scenario (Table 2) this requires a minimum collider energy of $`320\text{GeV}`$. To the set of three cross sections and three masses we fit the neutralino parameters $`|M_1|,M_2,\varphi _1`$, for given $`|\mu |`$, and obtain an error on the determination of $`\varphi _1`$ of $`0.027`$, i.e. similar to case including one higgsino. Adding $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to the fitted parameters increases the error on $`\varphi _1`$ to RMS$`=0.032`$, as can be seen in Fig. 13. As shown before, the inclusion of slepton masses would not change this result significantly. It only requires a larger set of observables. A wrong measurement of $`|\mu |`$, however, would lead to a systematic error of the phase determination. We estimate this by assuming a wrong extraction of $`|\mu |=305\text{GeV}`$ and $`315\text{GeV}`$ for a ‘true’ value $`|\mu |=310\text{GeV}`$. In Fig. 13 the extracted values of $`|M_1|`$ and $`M_2`$ are shifted systematically, as is the central value of the 10000 pseudo-measurements of $`\varphi _1`$. But the shift for a $`5\text{GeV}`$ mismeasurement of $`|\mu |`$ is only by half the statistical error of the phase measurement. We therefore conclude that it is possible to extract the phase $`\varphi _1`$ from a minimal set of parameters, if the error on the determination of $`|\mu |`$ does not exceed a few percent .

## 5 CP-Odd Variables and Asymmetries

To unambiguously identify an effect of CP violation, one needs to construct a “CP-odd variable”, whose expectation value vanishes if CP is conserved. At an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider, the initial state can be made a CP eigenstate, given the CP transformation relation

$$e^{}(\sigma _1,\stackrel{}{p})e^+(\sigma _2,\stackrel{}{p})e^{}(\sigma _2,\stackrel{}{p})e^+(\sigma _1,\stackrel{}{p}),$$
(8)
where $`\sigma _i`$ is the fermion helicity. We consider a specific process

$$e^{}(p_1)e^+(p_2)\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\mathrm{}_1^{}(q_1)\mathrm{}_2^+(q_2)\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0.$$
(9)
Denote a helicity matrix element by $`_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2)`$ where $`\sigma _1(\sigma _2)`$ is the helicity of the initial state electron (positron), which coincides with the longitudinal beam polarization; $`\stackrel{}{q}_1(\stackrel{}{q}_2)`$ denotes the momentum of the final state fermion (anti-fermion). For the process of Eq. (9), only two combinations of the helicity amplitude $`_+,_+`$ contribute. It is easy to show that under CP transformation,

$`_+(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q}_2)_+(\stackrel{}{q}_2,\stackrel{}{q}_1),`$ (10)
and $`_+`$ transforms similarly. If CP is conserved in the reaction, relation (10) becomes an equality. This argument is applicable for unpolarized or transversely polarized beams as well.

One can construct CP-odd kinematical variables to test the CP property of the reaction. We consider the following three angles defined as

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _+={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{q}_+}{|\stackrel{}{p}_1||\stackrel{}{q}_+|}},\mathrm{cos}\theta _{}={\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}_1\times \stackrel{}{q}_{})(\stackrel{}{q}_1\times \stackrel{}{q}_2)}{|\stackrel{}{p}_1\times \stackrel{}{q}_{}||\stackrel{}{q}_1\times \stackrel{}{q}_2|}},\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_1(\stackrel{}{q}_1\times \stackrel{}{q}_2)}{|\stackrel{}{p}_1||\stackrel{}{q}_1\times \stackrel{}{q}_2|}},`$ (11)
where $`\stackrel{}{q}_+=\stackrel{}{q}_1+\stackrel{}{q}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}_{}=\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{q}_2`$. It is easy to verify that all the three variables are CP-odd under final state CP transformations. We can then construct “forward-backward” asymmetries

$$𝒜^{FB}=\sigma ^F\sigma ^B=_0^1\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^0\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }d\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(12)
with respect to a CP-odd angle $`\theta `$.

Of the four Feynman diagrams contributing to process (9), there are two diagrams that contain explicit CP-violating phases, one from $`s`$-channel $`Z`$ exchange and one from a $`t`$-channel selectron exchange. If $`\mu >|M_1|,M_2`$ ($`\mu <|M_1|,M_2`$), then in most part of the parameter space the contribution from the selectron ($`Z`$) exchange diagram is dominant, thus makes the CP asymmetry from the interference small. We scanned the parameter space in $`(\varphi _1,\theta _\mu )`$, the asymmetry obtained is typically $`0.11.5\%`$. The beam polarizations do not improve the situation significantly. As an example, for $`|M_1|=80\text{GeV}`$, $`M_2=200\text{GeV}`$, $`\mu =275\text{GeV}`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4.0`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=165\text{GeV}`$, while $`\varphi _1=0.90\pi `$ and $`\theta _\mu =0.25\pi `$ the asymmetry from $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ appears to be about $`1.0\%`$, with an asymmetry rate of 2.7 fb. The asymmetries for other variables in Eq. (11) are comparable. Naively, such an asymmetry at a high luminosity linear collider of 200 fb-1 would lead to a 2$`\sigma `$ statistical effect, as estimated in . However, one would have to keep the systematics of the asymmetry measurements well below a percent level, in order to establish a positive observation. We thus consider it very challenging to experimentally observe this rather small asymmetry.

## 6 Conclusions/Outlook

We have shown that the current experimental limits on the neutron, electron and 199Hg electric dipole moments strongly constrain general SUSY models with several CP-violating phases, even in the presence of strong cancellations between the various SUSY contributions to the EDMs. Although it is only $`\theta _\mu `$ which is typically constrained to be small, in models in which the phase of $`B`$ is correlated to the other (large) phases in the model, this translates into a tight restriction on some combination of (large) phases, which may not be natural in any given model. The next year will see significant improvements in the experimental limit on the electron EDM , and work on improving the mercury EDM limits continues as well. Further down the road, new experimental techniques, such as using diatomic molecules to measure the electron EDM , or studies of the effects of CP violation on other systems, such as ($`b\overline{b}`$) production, will probe additional CP violation in the MSSM to still more sensitive levels.

These constraints on CP-violating phases are important for studies at a future Linear Collider. It was shown that one can always extract the phases $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\theta _\mu `$ from a complete set of masses and cross sections for neutralino and chargino pair production . The new EDM constraints essentially require $`\theta _\mu `$ to be too small to be measured at a Linear Collider. In the region where charginos and neutralinos are visible at a Linear Collider $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is preferably small, i.e. rendering its measurement accessible through Higgs production . Using the above constraints we extracted the finite phase $`\varphi _1`$ from a reduced set of masses and cross sections and find that a minimal set of observables is limited by the presence of a non-vanishing Higgsino component in the final state particles. Since a lower energy ($`400\text{GeV}`$) Linear Collider might not be able to produce slepton pairs we show that the $`t`$-channel masses in chargino and neutralino production can be fitted, their uncertainty does not interfere with the $`\varphi _1`$ phase measurement. Pair production of light charginos  might provide us with precise indirect information on the size of $`|\mu |`$ . We showed that in this case that we do not need to produce any chargino directly to determine the phase $`\varphi _1`$ from a truly minimal set of (gaugino) observables. For this set of observables we can even measure $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and easily cross check a $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ measurement from the Higgs sector.

We finally studied CP-odd variables at $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders. We found that the CP decay asymmetry constructed from the final state kinematics is typically about $`0.11.5\%`$. It will be challenging to experimentally observe this rather small asymmetry.

Acknowledgments
We thank the organizers of the “30 Years of Supersymmetry” Workshop in Minneapolis, where some of this work was completed. We would like thank Maxim Pospelov for many discussions, along with Norval Fortson, Mike Romalis, Jan Kalinowski and Hitoshi Murayama. TF would also like to thank the TPI in Minneapolis for its gracious hospitality this fall. This work was supported in part by DOE grant DE–FG02–95ER–40896, in part by the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, and in part by DOE grant DOE-EY-76-02-3071.


text:
# The principle of local reflexivity for operator ideals and its implications

## 1 Introduction

This survey paper is devoted to the presentation of the author‘s research results related to the investigation of operator ideals $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ which allow a transfer of the norm estimation in the classical principle of local reflexivity to their ideal (quasi–)norm $`𝐀`$. This research originated from the objective to facilitate the search for a non–accessible maximal normed Banach ideal (which is the same as a non–accessible finitely generated tensor norm in the sense of Grothendieck) and lead to the dissertation  in 1990. Later, in 1993, Pisier constructed such a counterexample (cf. \[1, 31.6.\]). Since each right–accessible maximal Banach ideal $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ even satisfies such a principle of local reflexivity for operator ideals (called $`𝔄`$LRP), Pisier‘s counterexample of a non–accessible maximal Banach ideal naturally lead to the search for counterexamples of maximal Banach ideals $`(𝔄_0,𝐀_0)`$ which even do not satisfy the $`𝔄_0`$-LRP, implying surprising relations between the existence of a norm on product operator ideals of type $`𝔅𝔏_2`$ (where $`𝔏_2`$ denotes the class of all operators which factor through a Hilbert space), the extension of finite rank operators with respect to a suitable operator ideal norm and the principle of local reflexivity for operator ideals (cf. ). The basic objects, connecting these different aspects, are product operator ideals with property (I) and property (S), introduced by Jarchow and Ott (see ). In the widest sense, a product operator ideal $`𝔄𝔅`$ has the property (I), if

$$(𝔄𝔅)𝔉=(𝔄𝔉)𝔅$$

and the property (S), if

$$(𝔄𝔅)𝔉=𝔄(𝔅𝔉)$$

(where $`𝔉`$ denotes the class of all finite rank operators) so that each finite rank operator in $`𝔄𝔅`$ is the composition of two operators, one of which is of finite rank. Since each operator ideal which contains $`𝔏_2`$ as a factor, has both, the property (I) and the property (S), Hilbert space factorization crystallized out as a fundamental key in these investigations.

## 2 The framework

In this section, we introduce the basic notation and terminology which we will use throughout in this paper. We only deal with Banach spaces and most of our notations and definitions concerning Banach spaces and operator ideals are standard. We refer the reader to the monographs ,  and  for the necessary background in operator ideal theory and the related terminology. Infinite dimensional Banach spaces over the field $`𝕂\{,\}`$ are denoted throughout by $`W,X,Y`$ and $`Z`$ in contrast to the letters $`E,F`$ and $`G`$ which are used for finite dimensional Banach spaces only. The space of all operators (continuous linear maps) from $`X`$ to $`Y`$ is denoted by $`𝔏`$(X,Y), and for the identity operator on $`X`$, we write $`Id_X`$. The collection of all finite rank (resp. approximable) operators from $`X`$ to $`Y`$ is denoted by $`𝔉`$(X,Y) (resp. $`\overline{𝔉}`$(X,Y)), and $`𝔈`$(X,Y) indicates the collection of all operators, acting between finite dimensional Banach spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$ (elementary operators). The dual of a Banach space $`X`$ is denoted by $`X^{}`$, and $`X^{\prime \prime }`$ denotes its bidual $`(X^{})^{}`$. If $`T𝔏`$(X,Y) is an operator, we indicate that it is a metric injection by writing $`T:X\stackrel{1}{}Y`$, and if it is a metric surjection, we write $`T:X\stackrel{1}{}Y`$. If $`X`$ is a Banach space, $`E`$ a finite dimensional subspace of $`X`$ and $`K`$ a finite codimensional subspace of $`X`$, then $`B_X:=\{xX:x1\}`$ denotes the closed unit ball, $`J_E^X`$ $`:E\stackrel{1}{}X`$ the canonical metric injection and $`Q_K^X:X\stackrel{1}{}X\mathrm{}K`$ the canonical metric surjection. Finally, $`T^{}𝔏(Y^{},X^{})`$ denotes the dual operator of $`T𝔏`$(X,Y).

If $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ and $`(𝔅,𝐁)`$ are given quasi–Banach ideals, we will use throughout the shorter notation $`(𝔄^d,𝐀^d)`$ for the dual ideal and the abbreviation $`𝔄\stackrel{1}{=}𝔅`$ for the isometric equality $`(𝔄,𝐀)=(𝔅,𝐁)`$. We write $`𝔄𝔅`$ if, regardless of the Banach spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$, we have $`𝔄(X,Y)𝔅(X,Y)`$. If $`X_0`$ is a fixed Banach space, we write $`𝔄(X_0,)𝔅(X_0,)`$ (resp. $`𝔄(,X_0)𝔅(,X_0)`$) if, regardless of the Banach space $`Z`$ we have $`𝔄(X_0,Z)𝔅(X_0,Z)`$ (resp. $`𝔄(Z,X_0)𝔅(Z,X_0)`$). The metric inclusion $`(𝔄,𝐀)(𝔅,𝐁)`$ is often shortened by $`𝔄\stackrel{1}{}𝔅`$. If $`𝐁(T)𝐀(T)`$ for all finite rank (resp. elementary) operators $`T𝔉`$ (resp. $`T𝔈`$), we sometimes use the abbreviation $`𝔄\stackrel{𝔉}{}𝔅`$ (resp. $`𝔄\stackrel{𝔈}{}𝔅`$).

First we recall the basic notions of Grothendieck’s metric theory of tensor products (cf., eg., , , , ), which together with Pietsch’s theory of operator ideals spans the mathematical frame of this paper. A tensor norm $`\alpha `$ is a mapping which assigns to each pair $`(X,Y)`$ of Banach spaces a norm $`\alpha (;X,Y)`$ on the algebraic tensor product $`XY`$ (shorthand: $`X`$ $`_\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ $`Y`$ and $`X\stackrel{~}{}_\stackrel{}{\alpha }Y`$ for the completion) so that

* $`\epsilon \alpha \pi `$
* $`\alpha `$ satisfies the metric mapping property: If $`S𝔏(X,Z)`$ and $`T𝔏(Y,W)`$, then $`ST:X_\stackrel{}{\alpha }YZ_\stackrel{}{\alpha }WST`$ .

Wellknown examples are the injective tensor norm $`\epsilon `$, which is the smallest one, and the projective tensor norm $`\pi `$, which is the largest one. For other important examples we refer to , , or . Each tensor norm $`\alpha `$ can be extended in two natural ways. For this, denote for given Banach spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$

$$\text{FIN}(X):=\{EXE\text{FIN}\}\text{and}\text{COFIN}(X):=\{LXX/L\text{FIN}\}\text{,}$$

where FIN stands for the class of all finite dimensional Banach spaces. Let $`zXY`$. Then the finite hull $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }(z;X,Y):=inf\{\alpha (z;E,F)E\text{FIN}(X)\text{}F\text{FIN}(Y)\text{}zEF\}\text{,}$$

and the cofinite hull $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ of $`\alpha `$ is given by

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }(z;X,Y):=sup\{\alpha (Q_K^XQ_L^Y(z);X/K,Y/L)K\text{COFIN}(X)\text{}L\text{ COFIN}(Y)\}\text{.}$$

$`\alpha `$ is called finitely generated if $`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$, cofinitely generated if $`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ (it is always true that $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ $`\alpha `$ $``$ $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$). $`\alpha `$ is called right–accessible if $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$$`(z;E,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }(z;E,Y)`$ for all $`(E,Y)`$ FIN $`\times `$ BAN, left–accessible if $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$$`(z;X,F)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$$`(z;X,F)`$ for all $`(X,F)`$ BAN $`\times `$ FIN, and accessible if it is right–accessible and left–accessible. $`\alpha `$ is called totally accessible if $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$. The injective norm $`\epsilon `$ is totally accessible, the projective norm $`\pi `$ is accessible – but not totally accessible, and Pisier’s construction implies the existence of a finitely generated tensor norm which is neither left– nor right–accessible (see \[1, 31.6.\]).

There exists a powerful one–to–one correspondence between finitely generated tensor norms and maximal Banach ideals which links thinking in terms of operators with ”tensorial” thinking and which allows to transfer notions in the ”tensor language” to the ”operator language” and conversely. In particular, this one–to–one correspondence helps to extend the trace duality

$$<S,T>:=tr(TS)(S𝔉(X,Y),T𝔉(Y,X))$$

to operator ideals by using tensor product methods. We refer the reader to  and  for detailed informations concerning this subject. Let $`X,Y`$ be Banach spaces and $`z=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i^{}y_i`$ be an Element in $`X^{}Y`$. Then $`T_z(x):=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x,x_i^{}`$ $`y_i`$ defines a finite rank operator $`T_z𝔉(X,Y)`$ which is independent of the representation of $`z`$ in $`X^{}Y`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be a finitely generated tensor norm and $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a maximal Banach ideal. $`\alpha `$ and $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ are said to be associated, notation:

$$(𝔄,𝐀)\alpha \text{(shorthand: }𝔄\alpha \text{, resp.}\alpha 𝔄\text{),}$$

if for all $`E,F`$ FIN

$$𝔄(E,F)=E^{}_\stackrel{}{\alpha }F$$

holds isometrically: $`𝐀(T_z)=\alpha (z;E^{},F)`$.

Since we will use them throughout in this paper, let us recall the important notions of the conjugate operator ideal (cf. ,  and ) and the adjoint operator ideal (all details can be found in the standard references  and ). Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a quasi–Banach ideal.

* Let $`𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }(X,Y)`$ be the set of all $`T𝔏(X,Y)`$ which satisfy

$$𝐀^\mathrm{\Delta }(T):=sup\{tr(TL)\text{ }L𝔉(Y,X),𝐀(L)1\}<\mathrm{}.$$

Then a Banach ideal $`(𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta },𝐀^\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is obtained (here, $`tr()`$ denotes the usual trace for finite rank operators). It is called the conjugate ideal of $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$.
* Let $`𝔄^{}(X,Y)`$ be the set of all $`T𝔏(X,Y)`$ which satisfy

$$𝐀^{}(T):=sup\{tr(TJ_E^XSQ_K^Y\}\text{ }E\text{FIN}(X),K\text{COFIN}(Y),𝐀(S)1\}<\mathrm{}.$$

Then a Banach ideal $`(𝔄^{},𝐀^{})`$ is obtained. It is called the adjoint operator ideal of $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$.

By definition, it immediately follows that $`𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{1}{}𝔄^{}`$. Another easy, yet important observation is the following: let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a quasi–Banach ideal and $`(𝔅,𝐁)`$ be a quasi–Banach ideal. If $`𝔄\stackrel{𝔈}{}𝔅`$, then $`𝔅^{}\stackrel{1}{}𝔄^{}`$, and $`𝔄\stackrel{𝔉}{}𝔅`$ implies the inclusion $`𝔅^\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{1}{}𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In particular, it follows that $`𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{1}{=}𝔄^{}`$ and $`(𝔄^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }})^{}\stackrel{1}{=}𝔄^{}`$. A deeper investigation of relations between the Banach ideals $`(𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta },𝐀^\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`(𝔄^{},𝐀^{})`$ needs the help of an important local property, known as accessibility, which can be viewed as a local version of injectivity and surjectivity. All necesary details about accessibility of operator ideals and its applications can be found in , ,  and . So let us recall :

* A quasi–Banach ideal $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ is called right–accessible, if for all $`(E,Y)`$ FIN $`\times `$ BAN, operators $`T𝔏(E,Y)`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$ there are $`F`$ FIN$`(Y)`$ and $`S𝔏(E,F)`$ so that $`T=J_F^YS`$ and $`𝐀(S)(1+\epsilon )𝐀(T)`$.
* $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ is called left–accessible, if for all $`(X,F)`$ BAN $`\times `$ FIN, operators $`T𝔏(X,F)`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$ there are $`L`$ COFIN$`(X)`$ and $`S𝔏(X/L,F)`$ so that $`T=SQ_L^X`$ and $`𝐀(S)(1+\epsilon )𝐀(T)`$.
* A left–accessible and right–accessible quasi–Banach ideal is called accessible.
* $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ is totally accessible, if for every finite rank operator $`T𝔉(X,Y)`$ acting between Banach spaces $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$ there are $`(L,F)`$ COFIN$`(X)\times `$ FIN$`(Y)`$ and $`S𝔏(X/L,F)`$ so that $`T=J_F^YSQ_L^X`$ and $`𝐀(S)(1+\epsilon )𝐀(T)`$.

Given quasi–Banach ideals $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ and $`(𝔅,𝐁)`$, let $`(𝔄𝔅,𝐀𝐁)`$ be the corresponding product ideal and $`(𝔄𝔅^1,𝐀𝐁^1)`$ (resp. $`(𝔄^1𝔅,𝐀^1𝐁))`$ the corresponding ”right–quotient” (resp. ”left–quotient”). We write $`(𝔄^{inj},𝐀^{inj})`$, to denote the injective hullof $`𝔄`$, the unique smallest injective quasi–Banach ideal which contains $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$, and $`(𝔄^{sur},𝐀^{sur})`$, the surjective hull of $`𝔄`$, is the unique smallest surjective quasi–Banach ideal which contains $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$. Of particular importance are the quotients $`𝔄^{}:=𝔄^1`$ and $`𝔄^{}:=𝔄^1`$ and their relations to $`𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`𝔄^{}`$, treated in detail in  and .

In addition to the maximal Banach ideal $`(𝔏,)\epsilon `$ we mainly will be concerned with the maximal Banach ideals $`(,𝐈)\pi `$ (integral operators), $`(𝔏_2,𝐋_2)w_2`$ (Hilbertian operators), $`(𝔇_2,𝐃_2)\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔏_2^{},𝐋_2^{})\stackrel{1}{=}𝔓_2^d𝔓_2w_2^{}`$ ($`2`$–dominated operators), $`(𝔓_p,𝐏_p)g_p\backslash =g_q^{}`$ (absolutely $`p`$–summing operators), $`1p\mathrm{},\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1`$, $`(𝔏_{\mathrm{}},𝐋_{\mathrm{}})\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔄_1^{},𝐏_1^{})w_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`(𝔏_1,𝐋_1)\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔓_1^d,𝐏_1^d)w_1`$. We also consider the maximal Banach ideals $`(_2,𝐂_2)`$ $`c_2`$ (cotype 2 operators) and $`(𝔄_P,𝐀_P)`$ $`\alpha _P`$ (Pisier‘s counterexample of a maximal Banach ideal which is neither right– nor left–accessible (cf. , 31.6)).

## 3 The principle of local reflexivity for operator ideals

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a maximal Banach ideal. Then, $`𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ always is right–accessible (cf. ). The natural question whether $`𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is left–accessible is still open111For minimal Banach ideals $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$, there exist counterexamples: the conjugate of $`𝔄_P^{\mathrm{min}}`$ neither is right–accessible nor left–accessible (cf. ). and leads to interesting and non–trivial results concerning the local structure of $`𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Deeper investigations of the left–accessibility of $`𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ namely lead to a link with a principle of local reflexivity for operator ideals (a detailed discussion can be found in  and ) which allows a transmission of the operator norm estimation in the classical principle of local reflexivity to the ideal norm $`𝐀`$. So let us recall the

###### Definition 3.1

Let $`E`$ and $`Y`$ be Banach spaces, $`E`$ finite dimensional, $`F`$ FIN$`(Y^{})`$ and $`T𝔏(E,Y^{\prime \prime })`$. Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a quasi–Banach ideal and $`ϵ>0`$. We say that the principle of $`𝔄`$local reflexivity (short: $`𝔄LRP`$) is satisfied, if there exists an operator $`S𝔏(E,Y)`$ so that

1. $`𝐀(S)(1+ϵ)𝐀^{}(T)`$
2. $`Sx,y^{}=y^{},Tx`$ for all $`(x,y^{})E\times F`$
3. $`j_YSx=Tx`$ for all $`xT^1(j_Y(Y))`$.

Although both, the quasi–Banach ideal $`𝔄`$ and the $`1`$–Banach ideal $`𝔄^{}`$ are involved, the unbalance can be justified by the following statement which holds for arbitrary quasi–Banach ideals (see ):

###### Theorem 3.1

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a quasi–Banach ideal. Then the following statements are equivalent:

1. $`𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is left–accessible
2. $`𝔄^{}(E,Y^{\prime \prime })`$ $`\stackrel{~}{=}`$ $`𝔄(E,Y)^{\prime \prime }`$ for all $`(E,Y)`$ FIN $`\times `$ BAN
3. The $`𝔄LRP`$ holds.

If we only assume that $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ is a maximal Banach ideal, the previous statement is contained in the following important observation (cf. ):

###### Theorem 3.2

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)\alpha `$ be an arbitrary maximal Banach ideal. Then the following statements are equivalent:

1. $`𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is left–accessible
2. $`𝔄(E,Y^{\prime \prime })`$ $`\stackrel{~}{=}`$ $`𝔄(E,Y)^{\prime \prime }`$ for all $`(E,Y)`$ FIN $`\times `$ BAN
3. $`(𝔄^d)^\mathrm{\Delta }(X_0,Y^{})\stackrel{~}{=}(X_0_\stackrel{}{\alpha }Y)^{}`$ for all Banach spaces $`X_0`$ with the metric approximation property and all $`Y`$ BAN
4. The $`𝔄LRP`$ holds.

One reason which leads to extreme persistent difficulties concerning the verification of the $`𝔄LRP`$ for a given maximal Banach ideal $`𝔄`$, is the behaviour of the bidual $`(𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta })^{dd}`$: although we know that in general $`(𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta })^{dd}`$ and $`(𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta })^d`$ both are accessible (see  and ) and that $`(𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta })^{dd}\stackrel{1}{}𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we do not know whether $`𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }(X,Y)`$ and $`(𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta })^{dd}(X,Y)`$ coincide isometrically for all Banach spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$. If we allow in addition the approximation property of $`X`$ or $`Y`$, then we may state the following

###### Theorem 3.3

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be an arbitrary maximal Banach ideal and $`X`$, $`Y`$ be arbitrary Banach spaces. Then

$$𝔄^{d\mathrm{\Delta }}(X,Y)\stackrel{1}{=}𝔄^{\mathrm{\Delta }d}(X,Y)$$

holds in each of the following two cases:

1. $`X^{}`$ has the metric approximation property
2. $`Y^{}`$ has the metric approximation property and the $`𝔄^dLRP`$ is satisfied.

Which class of operator ideals $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ does satisfy the $`𝔄LRP`$? At least, all maximal and right–accessible Banach ideals belong to this class (cf. ) due to the following

###### Theorem 3.4

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be an arbitrary Banach ideal. If $`𝔄`$ is right–accessible and ultrastable, then the $`𝔄LRP`$ is satisfied.

Pisier‘s counterexample of the maximal Banach ideal $`(𝔄_P,𝐀_P)`$ which neither is left–accessible nor right–accessible (cf. , 31.6) implies that in particular $`(𝔄_P^{},𝐀_P^{})`$ neither is left–accessible nor right–accessible. Thinking at $`𝔄_P^\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{1}{}𝔄_P^{}`$, this leads to the natural and even more tough question whether the $`𝔄_PLRP`$ is true or false. Since the Pisier space $`P`$ does not have the approximation property, $`𝔄_P^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ cannot be totally accessible. Is it even true that $`(𝔄_P^\mathrm{\Delta })^{inj}\stackrel{1}{=}𝔓_1(𝔄_P)^1`$ is not totally accessible? If this is the case, the $`𝔄_PLRP`$ will be false. However, $`𝔄_P^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not injective (cf. ). What about the left accessibility of $`𝔄_P^\mathrm{\Delta }`$? Can we mimic Pisier‘s proof to construct a similar counterexample of a maximal Banach ideal $`(𝔄_0,𝐀_0)`$ which even does not satisfy the $`𝔄_0LRP`$(cf. \[1, 31.6.\])? Unfortunately, the proof of the following statement leads to a negative answer:

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`Y`$ be an arbitrary Banach space. Then

$$(𝔄_P^\mathrm{\Delta })^{inj}(P,Y)𝔏_2(P,Y)\text{,}$$

and

$$𝐋_2(T)(2𝐂_2(P^{})𝐂_2(P))^{\frac{3}{2}}(𝐀_P^\mathrm{\Delta })^{inj}(T)$$

for all operators $`T(𝔄_P^\mathrm{\Delta })^{inj}(P,Y)`$.

Proof: First, let $`F`$ $``$ FIN and $`T𝔏(P,F)`$ an arbitrary linear operator. Since the bidual $`((𝔄_P^\mathrm{\Delta })^{dd},(𝐀_P^\mathrm{\Delta })^{dd})=:(𝔅_P,𝐁_P)`$ always is left–accessible (!) and $`T`$ is a finite rank operator, a copy of Pisier‘s construction immediately leads to

$$𝐋_2(T)(2𝐂_2(P^{})𝐂_2(P))^{\frac{3}{2}}𝐀_P^\mathrm{\Delta }(T^{\prime \prime })=(2𝐂_2(P^{})𝐂_2(P))^{\frac{3}{2}}𝐁_P(T)\text{.}$$

Conjugation therefore implies

$$𝔇_2(F,P)\stackrel{1}{=}𝔏_2^\mathrm{\Delta }(F,P)𝔅_P^\mathrm{\Delta }(F,P)\stackrel{1}{}𝔄_P^{}(F,P)$$

and

$$𝐀_P^{}(S)(2𝐂_2(P^{})𝐂_2(P))^{\frac{3}{2}}𝐃_2(S)\text{ for all }S𝔏(F,P)\text{.}$$

Since $`(𝔄_P^{},𝐀_P^{})`$ is maximal, it even follows that

$$𝔇_2(Y,P)𝔄_P^{}(Y,P)$$
(1)
for all Banach spaces $`Y`$ and

$$𝐀_P^{}(S)(2𝐂_2(P^{})𝐂_2(P))^{\frac{3}{2}}𝐃_2(S)\text{ for all }S𝔏(Y,P)\text{.}$$

Hence, conjugation of $`(1)`$ finishes the proof.$`\mathrm{}`$

Note that the accessibility of the bidual $`(𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta })^{dd}`$ (which also was used in the previous proof) implies one of the main difficulties which appear repeatedly if one tries to construct a counterexample of a maximal Banach ideal $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ so that the $`𝔄LRP`$ is not satisfied. In general, one is allowed to substitute statements related to properties of $`𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ through statements related to properties of the (left–)accessible bidual $`(𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta })^{dd}`$ so that these statements remain to be true, regardless whether the $`𝔄LRP`$ is satisfied or not! In particular, such statements cannot be used for a proof by contradiction. However, a first step towards a successful construction of such a candidate $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ is given by the following factorization property for finite rank operators which had been introduced by Jarchow and Ott (cf. ). This factorization property not only turns out to be a useful tool in constructing such a counterexample; it even allows one to show that $`𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$ is not totally accessible – solving a problem of Defant and Floret (see \[1, 21.12.\] and \[13, Theorem 4.1\]). So, let us recall the definition of this factorization property and its implications:

###### Definition 3.2 (Jarchow/Ott)

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ and $`(𝔅,𝐁)`$ be arbitrary quasi–Banach ideals. Let $`L𝔉(X,Y)`$ an arbitrary finite rank operator between two Banach spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Given $`ϵ>0`$, we can find a Banach space $`Z`$ and operators $`A𝔄(Z,Y)`$, $`B𝔅(X,Z)`$ so that $`L=AB`$ and

$$𝐀(A)𝐁(B)(1+ϵ)𝐀𝐁(L)\text{.}$$

1. If the operator $`A`$ is of finite rank, we say that $`𝔄𝔅`$ has the property (I).
2. If the operator $`B`$ is of finite rank, we say that $`𝔄𝔅`$ has the property (S).

Important examples are the following (see \[7, Lemma 2.4.\]):

* If $`𝔅`$ is injective, or if $`𝔄`$ contains $`𝔏_2`$ as a factor, then $`𝔄𝔅`$ has the property (I).
* If $`𝔄`$ is surjective, or if $`𝔅`$ contains $`𝔏_2`$ as a factor, then $`𝔄𝔅`$ has the property (S).

Since $`𝔏_2𝔄`$ is injective for every quasi–Banach ideal $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ (see \[12, Lemma 5.1.\]), $`𝔅𝔏_2𝔄`$ therefore has the property (I) as well as the property (S), for all quasi–Banach ideals $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ and $`(𝔅,𝐁)`$. Such ideals are exactly those which contain $`𝔏_2`$ as factor – in the sense of .  explains in detail how the property (I) influences the structure of operator ideals of type $`𝔄^{inj}\stackrel{1}{=}\mathrm{}𝔄^{}`$ and their conjugates, leading to another approach to construct a counterexample of a maximal Banach ideal with non–left–accessible conjugate. To this end, first note that for all Banach spaces $`X`$,$`Y`$ and $`X\stackrel{1}{}Z`$, every operator $`T(𝔄^{inj})^{}(X,Y)\stackrel{1}{=}\mathrm{}𝔄^{}(X,Y)`$ satisfies the following extension property: given $`ϵ>0`$, there exists an operator $`\stackrel{~}{T}\mathrm{}𝔄^{}(Z,Y^{\prime \prime })`$ so that $`j_YT=\stackrel{~}{T}J_X^Z`$ and $`\mathrm{}𝐀^{}(\stackrel{~}{T})(1+ϵ)\mathrm{}𝐀^{}(T)`$ (see \[6, Satz 7.14\]). In particular, such an extension holds for all finite rank operators. However, we then cannot be sure that $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is also as a finite rank operator. Here, property (I) comes into play – in the following sense:

###### Theorem 3.5

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a Banach ideal so that $`𝔄^{}𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$ has the property (I). Let $`ϵ>0`$, $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be arbitrary Banach spaces and $`L𝔉(Y,X)`$. Let $`Z`$ be a Banach space which contains $`Y`$ isometrically. Then there exists a finite rank operator $`V𝔉(Z,X^{\prime \prime })`$ so that $`j_XL=VJ_Y^Z`$ and

$$(𝐀^{inj})^{}(V)(1+ϵ)(𝐀^{inj})^{}(L)\text{.}$$

If in addition the $`𝔄^{}LRP`$ is satisfied, then $`V`$ even can be chosen to be a finite rank operator with range in $`X`$ and $`L=VJ_Y^Z`$.

Consequently, this theorem leads to important implications which link the principle of local reflexivity for operator ideals with product ideals of type (I) such as the following ones (cf. ):

###### Theorem 3.6

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a Banach ideal so that the $`𝔄^{}LRP`$ is satisfied. Then

$$𝔄^{\mathrm{\Delta }inj}\stackrel{1}{}(𝔄^{\mathrm{\Delta }inj})^{dd}$$

If in addition, $`𝔄^{}𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$ has the property (I), then

$$(𝔄^{\mathrm{\Delta }inj})^{dd}\stackrel{1}{=}𝔄^{\mathrm{\Delta }inj}\stackrel{1}{=}𝔓_1(𝔄^{})^1\stackrel{1}{=}𝔄^{inj\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔄^{inj\mathrm{\Delta }})^{dd}$$

###### Theorem 3.7

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a left–accessible Banach ideal so that $`𝔄^{}𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$ has the property (I). Then $`𝔄^{inj}`$ is totally accessible and $`𝔄^{inj}\stackrel{1}{}(𝔄^{inj})^\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If in addition $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ is maximal, then $`(𝔄^{inj})^{}`$ is also totally accessible.

###### Theorem 3.8

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a Banach ideal so that $`𝔄^{}𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$ has the property (I). If space$`(𝔄)`$ contains a Banach space $`X_0`$ so that $`X_0`$ has the bounded approximation property but $`X_0^{\prime \prime }`$ has not, then the $`𝔄^{}LRP`$ cannot be satisfied.

To construct such maximal Banach ideals, note again that $`𝔄^{}𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$ has the property (I), if $`𝔄^{}`$ contains $`𝔏_2`$ as a factor. Since $`𝔄^{}`$ is a Banach ideal, we therefore have to look for maximal Banach ideals of type $`𝔅𝔏_2`$. A first investigation of geometrical properties of such product ideals was given in .

## 4 Normed operator ideal products

Unfortunately, we still cannot present explicite sufficient criteria which show the existence of (an equivalent) ideal norm on product ideals. It seems to be much more easier to show that a certain product ideal cannot be a normed one by using arguments which involve trace ideals and the ideal of nuclear operators (the smallest Banach ideal). Even more holds: if $`𝔄𝔏_2`$ is a 1–Banach ideal for certain operator ideals $`𝔄`$, then $`𝔄𝔏_2`$ is not right–accessible (cf. Theorem 4.4)! However, let us look more carefully at such product ideals. First, we note an improvement of our own work (cf. \[13, Theorem 4.2\]):

###### Theorem 4.1

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a maximal Banach ideal. Then both, the maximal $`\frac{1}{2}`$–Banach ideal $`𝔄^{inj}𝔏_2`$ and the injective hull of the maximal $`\frac{1}{2}`$–Banach ideal $`𝔄𝔄_2`$ are totally accessible.

Proof: Since every Hilbert space has the metric approximation property and since $`𝔄^{inj}\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔄^{inj})^{}`$ is right–accessible, an easy calculation shows that

$$𝔄^{inj}𝔏_2\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔄^{inj})^\mathrm{\Delta }𝔏_2\text{.}$$
(2)
Since $`(𝔄^{inj})^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is right–accessible, the total accessibility of $`𝔏_2`$ and the property (S) of the product ideal $`(𝔄^{inj})^\mathrm{\Delta }𝔏_2`$ even imply that $`(𝔄^{inj})^\mathrm{\Delta }𝔏_2`$ is totally accessible (cf. \[13, Proposition 4.1\]). Hence, $`𝔄^{inj}𝔏_2`$ is totally accessible (due to $`(2)`$), and in particular we obtain that $`(𝔄𝔏_2)^{inj}\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔄^{inj}𝔏_2)^{inj}`$ is totally accessible.$`\mathrm{}`$

Now, let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a maximal Banach ideal so that $`𝐋_2𝐀`$ even is a norm on the (maximal) product ideal $`(𝔏_2𝔄,𝐋_2𝐀)`$. Then $`𝔄^{}\stackrel{1}{}(𝔏_2𝔄)^{}\stackrel{1}{}𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$ (cf. \[12, Proposition 5.1.\]) and $`𝔏_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{1}{=}𝔓_1^\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{1}{}𝔑^\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Given Banach spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$ so that both, $`X^{}`$ and $`Y`$ have cotype 2, \[15, Theorem 4.9.\] tells us, that any finite rank operator $`L𝔉(Y,X)`$ satisfies

$$𝐍(L)(2𝐂_2(X^{})𝐂_2(Y))^{\frac{3}{2}}𝐃_2(L)\text{.}$$

Hence,

$$𝔑^\mathrm{\Delta }(X,Y)𝔇_2^\mathrm{\Delta }(X,Y)\stackrel{1}{=}𝔏_2(X,Y)\text{,}$$

and we have proven a rather surprising fact (revealing the strong influence of a norm on an operator ideal product):

###### Theorem 4.2

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a maximal Banach ideal so that the product ideal $`(𝔏_2𝔄,𝐋_2𝐀)`$ is normed. Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be arbitrary Banach spaces so that both, $`X^{}`$ and $`Y`$ have cotype 2. Then

$$𝔄^{}(X,Y)\stackrel{1}{}(𝔏_2𝔄)^{}(X,Y)𝔏_2(X,Y)$$

and

$$𝐋_2(T)(2𝐂_2(X^{})𝐂_2(Y))^{\frac{3}{2}}(𝐋_2𝐀)^{}(T)(2𝐂_2(X^{})𝐂_2(Y))^{\frac{3}{2}}𝐀^{}(T)$$

for all operators $`T𝔄^{}(X,Y)`$.

To maintain the previous statement, even a permutation of the factors $`𝔄`$ and $`𝔏_2`$ in the product $`𝔏_2𝔄`$ is allowed:

###### Theorem 4.3

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a maximal Banach ideal so that the product ideal $`(𝔄𝔏_2,𝐀𝐋_2)`$ is normed. Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be arbitrary Banach spaces so that both, $`X^{}`$ and $`Y`$ have cotype 2. Then

$$𝔄^{}(X,Y)\stackrel{1}{}(𝔄𝔏_2)^{}(X,Y)𝔏_2(X,Y)$$

and

$$𝐋_2(T)(2𝐂_2(X^{})𝐂_2(Y))^{\frac{3}{2}}(𝐀𝐋_2)^{}(T)(2𝐂_2(X^{})𝐂_2(Y))^{\frac{3}{2}}𝐀^{}(T)$$

for all operators $`T𝔄^{}(X,Y)`$.

Proof: Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ and $`X`$, $`Y`$ be as before and let $`𝔄𝔏_2`$ be normed. Then $`𝔄\stackrel{1}{=}𝔄^{dd}`$, and $`𝔄𝔄_2`$ is a maximal (and therefore a regular) Banach ideal (cf. \[13, Lemma 4.3\]). Since the injective $`\frac{1}{2}`$–Banach ideal $`𝔏_2𝔄^d`$ is also regular (cf. \[12, Lemma 5.1\]), an easy calculation shows that

$$(𝔄𝔏_2)^d\stackrel{1}{=}𝔏_2𝔄^d$$

and222In particular, it follows that $`𝔄𝔏_2`$ is surjective (cf. \[14, 8.5.9.\]).

$$𝔄𝔏_2\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔏_2𝔄^d)^d\text{.}$$

Since $`𝐀𝐋_2`$ is a norm, $`(𝐀𝐋_2)^d`$ obviously is a norm too. Hence, if we apply the previous theorem to the normed product ideal $`(𝔄𝔏_2)^d\stackrel{1}{=}𝔏_2𝔄^d`$, we obtain

$$𝔄^d(X,Y)\stackrel{1}{}(𝔏_2𝔄^d)^{}(X,Y)\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔄𝔏_2)^d(X,Y)𝔏_2(X,Y)\text{,}$$

and

$$𝐋_2(T)C(𝐀𝐋_2)^{}(T^{})C𝐀^{}(T^{})$$

for all operators $`T𝔄^d(X,Y)`$ (where $`C:=(2𝐂_2(X^{})𝐂_2(Y))^{\frac{3}{2}}`$). Now, since $`Y`$ has the same coptype as its bidual $`(Y^{})^{}`$ with identical cotype constants (cf. \[2, Corollary 11.9\]), the proof is finished.$`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ be a given ultrastable quasi–Banach ideal so that $`(𝔄𝔏_2,𝐀𝐋_2)`$ is right–accessible. Our aim is to show that in this case $`(𝔄𝔏_2,𝐀𝐋_2)`$ and $`(𝔏_2𝔄^{},𝐋_2𝐀^{})`$ both together cannot be normed. To this end, we need a lemma which is of its own interest:

###### Lemma 4.1

Let $`(𝔄_0,𝐀_0)`$ be a maximal Banach ideal so that space$`(𝔄_0)`$ contains a Banach space without the approximation property. Then there does not exist a maximal Banach ideal $`(,𝐂)`$ so that $`𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$ has the property (I) and $`𝔄_0^1𝔓_1`$.

Proof: Assume that the statement is false. Then there exists a (maximal) Banach ideal $`(𝔄,𝐀)`$ so that $`𝔄_0𝔓_1(𝔄^{})^1\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta })^{inj}`$. Due to the assumed property (I) of $`𝔄^{}𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$, the proof of Theorem 3.4 in  shows that even $`((𝔄^\mathrm{\Delta })^{inj})^{dd}\stackrel{1}{}(𝔄^{inj})^\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{1}{}𝔑^\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Since $`𝔄_0`$ was assumed to be a maximal Banach ideal, we therefore obtain $`𝔄_0\stackrel{1}{=}𝔄_0^{dd}\stackrel{1}{}𝔑^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which is a contradiction.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 4.1

Let $`(𝔄_0,𝐀_0)`$ be a maximal Banach ideal so that space$`(𝔄_0)`$ contains a Banach space without the approximation property. If $`(𝔄_0^1𝔓_1)𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$ has the property (I), $`𝔄_0`$ is not left–accessible.

###### Theorem 4.4

Let $`(𝔅,𝐁)`$ be an ultrastable quasi–Banach ideal so that $`𝔅𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$. If $`𝔅𝔏_2`$ is right–accessible, $`𝔅𝔏_2`$ cannot be a $`1`$ Banach ideal.

Proof: Assume that the statement is false and put $`𝔅_0:=(𝔏_{\mathrm{}}𝔏_2)^{}`$ and $`𝔄:=(𝔅𝔏_2)^{}`$. Then

$$𝔄^{}\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔅𝔏_2)^{\mathrm{max}}\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔅𝔏_2)^{reg}\stackrel{1}{=}𝔅^{reg}𝔏_2$$

is right–accessible (cf. \[13, Proposition 2.3\]) and contains $`𝔏_2`$ as a factor so that in particular $`𝔄^{}𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$ has the property (I). Since $`𝔅𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$,

$$𝔅_0𝔄^{}𝔄𝔄^{}\stackrel{1}{}\stackrel{1}{}𝔓_1\text{,}$$

and it follows that $`𝔄^{}𝔅_0^1𝔓_1`$. Since $`Id_P𝔅_0`$ (cf. \[13, Proposition 4.4\]), Lemma 4.1 leads to a contradiction.$`\mathrm{}`$

Now let us assume that $`(𝔅,𝐁)`$ is even is a maximal Banach ideal so that $`𝔅𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$. If $`𝔅𝔏_2`$ were normed, then $`𝔅𝔏_2`$ would be a maximal and surjective Banach ideal, implying that $`𝔓_1^d\stackrel{1}{=}^{sur}\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔑^{max})^{sur}\stackrel{1}{}𝔅𝔏_2`$. Hence,

$$(𝔅𝔏_2)^{}\stackrel{1}{}𝔓_1^d\stackrel{1}{=}𝔏_1\text{.}$$
(3)
Since $`𝔅𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$, it even follows that $`𝔓_1\stackrel{1}{=}𝔏_{\mathrm{}}^{}(𝔅𝔏_2)^{}\stackrel{1}{}𝔏_1`$ which is a contradiction (cf. \[1, 27.2.\]). So, in this case we obtain a stronger result:

###### Theorem 4.5

Let $`(𝔅,𝐁)`$ be a maximal Banach ideal so that $`𝔅𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$. Then $`𝔅𝔏_2`$ cannot be a $`1`$ Banach ideal.

We finish this survey paper with two statements linking the principle of local reflexivity with normed operator ideal products consisting of operators which factor through a Hilbert space (cf. \[13, Theorem 4.4\]):

###### Theorem 4.6

Let $`(𝔅,𝐁)`$ be an ultrastable quasi–Banach ideal and $`X_0`$ be a Banach space without the bounded approximation property so that

$$(𝔅𝔏_2)^{reg}(,X_0)\stackrel{𝔉}{}𝔓_1(,X_0)\text{ .}$$

If $`𝔅𝔏_2`$ is a $`1`$–Banach ideal, then the $`(𝔅𝔏_2)^{}LRP`$ cannot be satisfied.

###### Theorem 4.7

Let $`(𝔅,𝐁)`$ be a maximal Banach ideal so that $`𝔓_1𝔅^1`$ contains $`𝔏_2`$ as a factor and $`𝔏_{\mathrm{}}(𝔓_1𝔅^1)`$ is normed. If there exists a Banach space $`X_0`$ without the approximation property so that $`X_0`$ space$`(𝔅)`$, then the $`𝔅LRP`$ is false.

Proof: Assume that the statement is not true. Then $`𝔄_0:=𝔓_1𝔅^1\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔅^\mathrm{\Delta })^{inj}`$ is totally accessible. Since $`𝔄_0`$ contains $`𝔏_2`$ as a factor, $`𝔏_{\mathrm{}}𝔄_0`$ in particular has the property (S), and it follows that $`𝔏_{\mathrm{}}𝔄_0`$ even is totally accessible (cf. \[13, Proposition 4.1\]). Hence,

$$𝔅\stackrel{1}{}𝔄_0^1𝔓_1\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔏_{\mathrm{}}𝔄_0)^{}\stackrel{1}{=}(𝔏_{\mathrm{}}𝔄_0)^\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{1}{}𝔑^\mathrm{\Delta }\text{,}$$

and we obtain a contradiction.$`\mathrm{}`$