text:
# Untitled Document

hep-ph/0101092 SCIPP-01/03 WIS/01/01-Jan-DPP

CP Violation and the Scale of Supersymmetry Breaking

Michael Dine, Erik Kramer

Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics

University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064

dine@scipp.ucsc.edu, lunenor@physics.ucsc.edu

Yosef Nir and Yael Shadmi

Department of Particle Physics

Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel

ftnir@wicc.weizmann.ac.il, yshadmi@wicc.weizmann.ac.il

Supersymmetric models with a high supersymmetry breaking scale give, in general, large contributions to $`\epsilon _K`$ and/or to various electric dipole moments, even when contributions to CP conserving, flavor changing processes are sufficiently suppressed. Some examples are models of dilaton dominance, alignment, non-Abelian flavor symmetries, heavy first two generation sfermions, anomaly mediation and gaugino mediation. There is then strong motivation for ‘approximate CP’, that is a situation where all CP violating phases are small. In contrast, in supersymmetric models with a low breaking scale it is quite plausible that the CKM matrix is the only source of flavor and CP violation. Gauge mediation provides a concrete example. Approximate CP is then unacceptable. Upcoming measurements of the CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$ might exclude or support the idea of approximate CP and consequently probe the scale of supersymmetry breaking.

1/01

1. Introduction

CP violation has, until recently, been one of the least explored areas of the Standard Model. There is little evidence as to whether the smallness of the CP violation observed in the kaon system is due to flavor suppression, as is the case for the Kobayashi-Maskawa (KM) mechanism of the Standard Model, or whether it is due to a suppression of all CP violating phases. The latter option is known as “approximate CP”.

Approximate CP could naturally arise if CP is an exact symmetry of the microscopic theory that is spontaneously broken . Indeed, in various string theory compactifications, CP is an exact gauge symmetry. It is then possible, as we will demonstrate through a simple toy model, to obtain small CP violating phases if some superpotential couplings are small; this is entirely natural. In other words, given that in our experience, most Yukawa couplings are small, approximate CP is a likely (though certainly not inevitable) consequence of spontaneous CP violation (SCPV).

The advent of $`B`$-factories could dramatically change the current picture of CP violation. The Standard Model predicts large CP-violating asymmetries in neutral $`B`$ decays. Measuring small asymmetries would therefore signal new physics, possibly obeying approximate CP. Conversely, measuring large asymmetries would rule out approximate CP. In this paper we therefore examine various supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model, in which new sources of CP violation typically abound, from the point of view of their compatibility with approximate CP, and their implications for CP violation in the $`B`$ system. We will argue that in theories with high scale supersymmetry breaking, there is typically strong motivation for approximate CP. In contrast, in theories with low scale supersymmetry breaking, approximate CP is typically unacceptable.

If the CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$ is measured to be very small, supersymmetry with high breaking scale will be a very likely explanation, the Standard Model will be excluded, and a supersymmetric extension with low scale breaking will be unlikely.

Supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model currently face two classes of constraints from CP violation. One has to do with CP violation in the $`K`$ system, or the smallness of $`\epsilon _K`$. The second constraint is the smallness of electric dipole moments. The question of supersymmetric contributions to $`\epsilon _K`$ is related to the question of supersymmetric contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$. The requirement that these be adequately suppressed already implies that the squark mass matrices must have some special features. The supersymmetric contributions to $`\epsilon _K`$ involve the phases appearing in these mass matrices, and the mechanism which suppresses $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ will have implications for $`\epsilon _K`$. Supersymmetric contributions to EDMs, on the other hand, involve the $`A`$ terms for the sfermions and the $`B`$ term for the Higgs, and therefore depend on the relative phases between these terms, the gaugino mass, the Yukawa couplings and the $`\mu `$ term. Approximate CP is one possible explanation for the smallness of dipole moments. Alternatively, they might be small because of the existence of relations among these terms. Relations of this type, as we will review, sometimes arise in models of high scale supersymmetry breaking. As is well known, even in theories where the $`A`$ term and gaugino phases are correlated, the relation between the $`\mu `$ and $`B`$ term phases tends to be highly model-dependent. Alternatively, $`A`$ term contributions may be suppressed if the size of the $`A`$ terms is small, as typically occurs in models of low energy supersymmetry breaking (gauge mediation), and might occur in other theories.

In all of our discussion, we will suppose that we are dealing with a theory which provides an explanation of the suppression of flavor-changing processes (particularly $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$). There have been a number of proposals, and we will review them here. As we will see, theories with high-scale supersymmetry breaking in which the supersymmetry breaking terms of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) are generated near the Planck scale, typically predict $`\epsilon _K`$ and EDMs values that are too large, if CP-violating phases are of order one. First, the suppression of flavor changing couplings (“flavor suppression”) in these theories is barely sufficient to satisfy the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ constraint. As a result, such theories generically fail to satisfy the $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint, and approximate CP seems to be a likely ingredient of such theories. Second, some or all of the phases in the $`A`$ and/or $`B`$ terms in these theories are generally not related to the phases of the Yukawa couplings and the $`\mu `$ term. There are then new contributions to EDMs that are too large, unless these phases are small. Such theories therefore require approximate CP, and would then lead to small CP asymmetries in $`B`$ decays.

On the other hand, in theories of low scale supersymmetry breaking, such as Gauge Mediation, it is very difficult to accommodate approximate CP. New contributions to $`\epsilon _K`$ are flavor suppressed because the supersymmetry breaking terms are flavor blind. Therefore, the Standard Model itself has to account for $`\epsilon _K`$, and this requires a large KM phase. Measuring small asymmetries in $`B`$ decays would therefore rule out simple models of low energy supersymmetry breaking.

Models in the literature with approximate CP typically predict too small a value of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$. There is, however, no fundamental reason for this situation and, as we will show, it is possible to construct models in which $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ is of the correct size. These models are not generic, and may require some fine tuning. If the idea of approximate CP finds support in measurements of CP asymmetries in $`B`$ decays, the construction of attractive models within this framework with $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon =𝒪(10^3)`$ will become an important challenge.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we illustrate the idea of approximate CP through some simple toy models. In Section 3, we summarize the CP violation constraints on supersymmetric models, and the main possibilities for suppressing flavor violations and hence $`\epsilon _K`$, emphasizing universality. We then review the predictions for CP violations in various models of supersymmetry breaking, starting with low scale models in Sec 4, and going on to high scale models in Section 5.

2. Approximate CP

That spontaneous CP violation can be small is perhaps obvious, but it is worth illustrating the issues with some simple models. We can imagine that CP is violated by the dynamics which breaks supersymmetry, or by other dynamics, perhaps associated with flavor physics. The former assumption is the simplest, and we focus on it here.

We consider an O’Raifeartaigh model with three gauge-singlet fields, $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`A`$. (We later comment on the coupling to supergravity.) We impose the following three symmetries:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{CP}\mathrm{symmetry}& :\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }=X,Y,A);\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{R}\mathrm{symmetry}& :R(X)=R(Y)=2,R(A)=0;\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{D}\mathrm{symmetry}& :AA,XX,YY.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then the most general superpotential that is consistent with these symmetries is given by

$$W=X(\lambda _XA^2+\mu _X^2)+Y(\lambda _YA^2+\mu _Y^2),$$

where all couplings are real due to the CP symmetry. For $`X`$ and $`Y`$, the minimum condition reads

$$\lambda _XX+\lambda _YY=0.$$

Thus these two VEVs are not determined classically, but it is natural to have at the minimum $`X=Y=0`$ since this solution preserves the R-symmetry. To find $`A`$, we define $`\lambda ^2\lambda _X^2+\lambda _Y^2`$ and $`\mu _\lambda ^2\lambda _X\mu _X^2+\lambda _Y\mu _Y^2`$. For $`\mu _\lambda ^2>0`$, we get

$$A_ReA=0,A_ImA=\sqrt{\frac{\mu _\lambda ^2}{\lambda ^2}}.$$

Note that these VEVs preserve a subgroup of the CP and D symmetries that can be called a CP symmetry:

$$XX^{},YY^{},AA^{}.$$

Therefore, this model does not have SCPV. Supersymmetry is broken because $`F_X0`$ and $`F_Y0`$. Both $`F_X`$ and $`F_Y`$ are, however, real, consistent with the CP symmetry.

We modify the model by allowing a small breaking of the D symmetry:

$$W_{\mathit{}}=A(m_XX+m_YY).$$

The breaking is small in the sense that the scale of $`m_i^2`$ is much smaller than the scale of $`\mu _i^2`$. It is easy to see that $`X=Y=0`$ is still an R-symmetry conserving minimum. As concerns $`A`$, to leading order in $`m^2/\mu ^2`$ we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_I& \sqrt{\frac{\mu _\lambda ^2}{\lambda ^2}},\hfill \\ \hfill A_R& \frac{1}{4}\left[\left(\frac{\lambda _X}{\lambda ^2}+\frac{\mu _X^2}{\mu _\lambda ^2}\right)m_X+\left(\frac{\lambda _Y}{\lambda ^2}+\frac{\mu _Y^2}{\mu _\lambda ^2}\right)m_Y\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

Consequently, CP is spontaneously broken. In particular,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F_X=& \mu _X^2\lambda _XA_I^2+iA_I\left(m_X+2\lambda _XA_R\right),\hfill \\ \hfill F_Y=& \mu _Y^2\lambda _YA_I^2+iA_I\left(m_Y+2\lambda _YA_R\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

(and $`F_A=0`$). We learn that $`F_X`$ and $`F_Y`$ carry (different) small phases, of order $`m/\mu `$.

As a consequence of the complex nature of $`F_XF_Y^{}`$, supersymmetry breaking terms will carry small phases. For example, there will be CP violating contributions to squark masses-squared, to $`A`$-terms and to gaugino masses:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{squark}\mathrm{masses}:& d^4\theta \frac{\gamma ^{ij}}{M^2}X^{}YQ_i^{}Q_j+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.;\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{A}\mathrm{terms}:& d^2\theta (a_XX+a_YY)H_uQ_i\overline{u}_j;\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{gaugino}\mathrm{masses}:& d^2\theta (b_XX+b_YY)W_\alpha ^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

So this simple model leads to CP violation, with phases that can be small as certain parameters in the superpotential, related to the breaking of a discrete symmetry, become small.

Obviously, we can retain the approximate CP but achieve richer phenomenology by adding more fields and couplings. An appealing choice is to embed our simple model in a grand unified framework, with $`A`$ now an adjoint field. The $`AA`$ symmetry must now be broken by non-renormalizable couplings. The ratio of the unification scale to the Planck (fundamental) scale could then be the source of the small CP-violating parameter.

If we couple these models to supergravity, we must face issues of naturalness connected with the cosmological constant problem. In particular, the constant in the superpotential required to cancel the cosmological constant breaks any would-be R symmetry, and it is difficult to write down models which are the most general consistent with symmetries which break supersymmetry. This is a problem in the original Polonyi model. As in that case, one can suppose, for example, that certain terms in the superpotential are small, and find a stable or metastable local minimum of the potential.

The model that we presented in this section demonstrates that spontaneous CP violation can naturally induce small phases in the supersymmetry breaking F-terms. There is another, very different, mechanism that leads to approximate CP. It could be that the spontaneous CP breaking leads to VEVs with phases of order one, but the information about CP violation is communicated to the observable sector in a way that suppresses the phases in the low energy effective theory, that is the supersymmetric standard model. The suppression could be a result of mediation through non-renormalizable terms, as in the models of ref. , or of gauge mediation, as in the models of ref. .

3. Constraints on Supersymmetry from CP Violation

In this section we discuss the constraints on CP violation in supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model. We first briefly review the generic contributions to CP violating quantities in such models. For arbitrary supersymmetry breaking terms, these contributions are far too large. We then go on to enumerate different patterns of scalar masses that lead to small flavor violations, thus suppressing $`\epsilon _K`$. We focus on the case of universal masses, which is a good starting point for understanding the basic issues associated with approximate CP.

3.1. Generic CP violating contributions

The MSSM superpotential is given by

$$W=Y_{ij}^uH_uQ_{Li}U_{Rj}+Y_{ij}^dH_dQ_{Li}D_{Rj}+Y_{ij}^{\mathrm{}}H_dL_{Li}\mathrm{}_{Rj}+\mu H_uH_d.$$

Supersymmetry breaking in the MSSM appears through the Lagrangian

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{\mathrm{soft}}=& (A_{ij}^uH_u\stackrel{~}{Q}_{Li}\stackrel{~}{U}_{Rj}+A_{ij}^dH_d\stackrel{~}{Q}_{Li}\stackrel{~}{D}_{Rj}+A_{ij}^{\mathrm{}}H_d\stackrel{~}{L}_{Li}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{Rj}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)\hfill \\ \hfill & BH_uH_d\underset{\mathrm{all}\mathrm{scalars}}{}(m_S^2)_{ij}A_i\overline{A}_j\frac{1}{2}\underset{(a)=1}{\overset{3}{}}(m_{1/2}^{(a)}(\lambda \lambda )_{(a)}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`S=Q_L,D_R,U_R,L_L,\mathrm{}_R`$, $`A`$ denotes scalar fields and $`\lambda `$ gaugino fields. A typical supersymmetric contribution to $`\epsilon _K`$ comes from box diagrams with intermediate gluinos and squarks, giving

$$\epsilon _K=\frac{5\alpha _3^2}{162\sqrt{2}}\frac{f_K^2m_K}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_K}\left[\left(\frac{m_K}{m_s+m_d}\right)+\frac{3}{25}\right]m\left[(\delta _{12}^d)_{LL}(\delta _{12}^d)_{RR}\right].$$

Here

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\delta _{12}^d)_{LL}=& \left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_1}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2}\right)\left|K_{12}^{dL}\right|,\hfill \\ \hfill (\delta _{12}^d)_{RR}=& \left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_1}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}^2}\right)\left|K_{12}^{dR}\right|,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is the typical scale of the soft supersymmetry breaking terms, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2`$ ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}^2`$) are the masses-squared of the squark doublets (down-type singlets), and $`K_{ij}^{dL}`$ ($`K_{ij}^{dR}`$) are the mixing angles in the gluino couplings to left-handed (right-handed) down quarks and their scalar partners. The $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint then reads

$$\left(\frac{300\mathrm{GeV}}{\stackrel{~}{m}}\right)^2m\left[(\delta _{12}^d)_{LL}(\delta _{12}^d)_{RR}\right]<5\times 10^8.$$

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ constraint on $`e\left[(\delta _{12}^d)_{LL}(\delta _{12}^d)_{RR}\right]`$ is about two orders of magnitude weaker. One can distinguish then three interesting regions for $`\delta _{12}^d=\sqrt{(\delta _{12}^d)_{LL}(\delta _{12}^d)_{RR}}`$:

$$\delta _{12}^d\{\begin{array}{cc}0.003\hfill & \text{excluded,}\hfill \\ 0.0002\mathrm{and}<0.003\hfill & \text{viable with small phases,}\hfill \\ 0.0002\hfill & \text{viable with }𝒪(1)\text{ phases.}\hfill \end{array}$$

The first bound comes from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ constraint (assuming that the relevant phase is not particularly close to $`\pi /2`$). The bounds here apply to squark masses of order 500 GeV and scale like $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$. There is also dependence on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}/\stackrel{~}{m}`$, which is here taken to be one.

The supersymmetric contribution to the electric dipole moment of the down quark (which is one of the main sources of $`d_N`$) can be estimated, for models in which the $`A`$ terms are proportional to the SM Yukawa couplings, $`A_{ij}=AY_{ij}`$, to be

$$d_d=m_d\frac{e\alpha _3|m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}|}{18\pi \stackrel{~}{m}^4}\left(|A|\mathrm{sin}\varphi _A+\mathrm{tan}\beta |\mu |\mathrm{sin}\varphi _B\right),$$

where

$$\varphi _A=\mathrm{arg}(A^{}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}),\varphi _B=\mathrm{arg}(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mu B^{}).$$

The $`d_N`$ constraint reads then

$$\left(\frac{300\mathrm{GeV}}{\stackrel{~}{m}}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{A,B}<0.03.$$

3.2. Suppressing FCNCs and $`\epsilon _K`$

As in the Standard Model, the $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint can be satisfied if flavor changing couplings are adequately suppressed. As can be inferred from eq. (3.1), there are roughly three different possible patterns of squark masses that lead to small FCNCs. One is universality: scalars of the same gauge representations get degenerate masses. This structure is generated, at least to leading order, in many models including gauge mediation, anomaly mediation, gaugino mediation and dilaton dominated supersymmetry breaking. The size of deviations from universality in such theories determines how CP violation is realized at low energies. Another possibility for suppressing FCNCs, and therefore $`\epsilon _K`$, is through alignment of the squark mass matrices with quark mass matrices. In such models, squark mass matrices are approximately diagonal in the quark mass basis. Models of high scale supersymmetry breaking, in which the squark mass matrices as well as the quark mass matrices are governed by flavor symmetries, naturally give rise to alignment. Finally, FCNCs, and therefore $`\epsilon _K`$ are suppressed if the first two generation sfermions are heavy.

Note that universality and alignment do not affect, in general, the supersymmetric contributions to EDMs. On the other hand, as can be seen from eq. (3.1), a large mass for the first two generation sfermions will alleviate the EDM problem.

In the next section, we will study CP violation in different models of supersymmetry breaking which fall under these three different categories. Since most of these models try to achieve universality, let us start by discussing the $`\epsilon _K`$ prediction in models of exact universality.

3.3. Exact universality

If at some high energy scale squarks are exactly degenerate and the $`A`$ terms proportional to the Yukawa couplings, then the contribution to $`\epsilon _K`$ comes from RGE and is GIM suppressed, that is

$$\epsilon _Km(V_{td}V_{ts}^{})^2Y_t^4\left[\frac{\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{SUSY}}/m_W)}{16\pi ^2}\right]^2.$$

This contribution is negligibly small . The contribution from genuinely supersymmetric phases (i.e. the phases in $`A_t`$ and $`\mu `$) is also negligible .

This does not mean that there is no supersymmetric effect on $`\epsilon _K`$. In some small corner of parameter space the supersymmetric contribution from stop-chargino diagrams can give up to 20% of $`\epsilon _K`$ .

We conclude that in a supersymmetric framework with nearly exact universality and proportionality at some high scale, the Standard Model diagrams still have to account for $`\epsilon _K`$. Note that in order to do that, the Kobayashi-Maskawa phase has to be of order one. So in such theories, not only is there is no motivation for approximate CP but actually this possibility is excluded with exact universality. (It follows that the EDM problems have to be solved by mechanisms other than approximate CP.) We will argue below that this is the situation in models with low scale supersymmetry breaking, but that typically degeneracy and proportionality do not hold to such a high degree of accuracy in high scale models.

4. Low Scale Supersymmetry Breaking: Gauge Mediation

In models of Gauge Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking (GMSB), superpartner masses are generated by the Standard Model gauge interactions. These masses are then exactly universal at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, at which they are generated (up to tiny high order effects associated with Yukawa couplings). Furthermore, $`A`$ terms are suppressed by loop factors. The only contribution to $`\epsilon _K`$ is then from the running, and since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is low it is highly suppressed.

These models can also readily satisfy the EDM constraints. In most models, the $`A`$ terms and gaugino masses arise from the same supersymmetry breaking auxiliary field. They therefore carry the same phase (up to corrections from the Standard Model Yukawa couplings), and $`\varphi _A`$ vanishes to a very good approximation.

The value of $`\varphi _B`$ in general depends on the mechanism for generating the $`\mu `$ term. However, running effects can generate an adequate $`B`$ term at low scales in these models even if $`B(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{SUSY}})=0`$. One then finds

$$\frac{B}{\mu }=A_t(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{SUSY}})+M_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{SUSY}})(0.12+0.17|h_t|^2),$$

where $`M_2`$ is the $`SU(2)`$ gaugino mass, $`h_t`$ is the top Yukawa, and $`A_t`$ is the top $`A`$ term. Since $`\varphi _A0`$, the resulting $`\varphi _B`$ therefore vanishes, again up to corrections involving the Standard Model Yukawa couplings .

There is therefore no CP problem in simple models of gauge mediation, even with phases of order one. A large KM phase is actually required in order to account for $`\epsilon _K`$, so approximate CP is unacceptable. GMSB models predict then a large CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$, with small deviations (at most 20%) from the SM.

This conclusion may be evaded in more complicated models of gauge mediation. For example, matter-messenger couplings typically spoil universality, and may carry additional phases. The size of such couplings is of course constrained by CP conserving flavor changing processes, but with phases of order one they could lead to $`\epsilon _K`$ values that are too large even if the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ constraint is satisfied. These couplings can however be forbidden by symmetries.

The fact that $`\varphi _A`$ and $`\varphi _B`$ vanish in simple models of gauge mediation is really a consequence of the fact that the soft terms in these models are generated by a limited number of new couplings. These couplings can often be chosen to be real by field redefinitions, so that there are no physical CP violating phases beyond the KM phase. The same holds for simple models of anomaly mediated supersymmetry breaking as we will see later.

The situation is very different in models of high scale supersymmetry breaking. In such models, the soft terms are generated by non-renormalizable terms, and since typically many such terms appear, it is impossible to rotate away all phases.

5. High Scale Supersymmetry Breaking

5.1. Dilaton dominance

If different moduli of string theory obtain supersymmetry breaking $`F`$ terms, they would typically induce flavor-dependent soft terms through their tree-level couplings to Standard Model fields. If however the dilaton $`F`$ term is the dominant one, then at tree level, the resulting soft masses are universal and the $`A`$ terms proportional to the Yukawa couplings. This is because the dilaton couplings to Standard Model fields are constrained by the fact that the dilaton determines the Standard Model gauge couplings.

One then finds for the gaugino masses, the scalar masses-squared, and the $`A`$ term,

$$m_{1/2}=\frac{F_S}{S+S^{}},m_0^2=|m_{3/2}|^2=\frac{1}{3}\frac{|F_S|^2}{S+S^{}},A=\frac{F_S}{S+S^{}},$$

where $`S`$ and $`F_S`$ are the dilaton scalar and auxiliary VEVs respectively. There is then no new contribution to $`\epsilon _K`$ in models of dilaton dominance to leading order in string perturbation theory.

Both universality and proportionality are violated by string loop effects. These induce corrections to squark masses of order $`\frac{\alpha _X}{\pi }m_{3/2}^2`$, where $`\alpha _X=(2\pi (S+S^{}))^1`$ is the string coupling. There is no reason why these corrections would be flavor blind. However, RGE effects enhance the universal part of the squark masses by roughly a factor of 5, leaving the off-diagonal entries essentially unchanged. The flavor suppression factor is then

$$\delta _{12}^d\frac{m_{12}^{2\mathrm{one}\mathrm{loop}}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}\frac{\alpha _X}{\pi }\frac{1}{25}4\times 10^4.$$

Dilaton dominance relies on the assumption that loop corrections are small. This probably presents the most serious theoretical difficulty for this idea, because it is hard to see how non-perturbative effects, which are probably required to stabilize the dilaton, could do so in a region of weak coupling. In the strong coupling regime, these corrections could be much larger . However, this idea at least gives some plausible theoretical explanation for how universal masses might emerge in hidden sector models. Given that dilaton stabilization might require that non-perturbative effects are important, the estimate of flavor suppression (5.1) might well turn out to be an underestimate.

We now turn to the flavor diagonal phases that enter in various EDMs. From eqn. (5.1) it is easy to see that $`\varphi _A`$ vanishes at tree-level, so that

$$\varphi _A=𝒪\left(\alpha _X/\pi \right).$$

However, $`\varphi _B`$ is unsuppressed, even when $`\mu `$, and through it $`B`$, are generated by Kahler potential effects through supersymmetry breaking, in which case $`B=2m_{3/2}^{}\mu `$ . While the size of $`m_{3/2}`$ is determined from the requirement that the cosmological constant vanishes, its phase remains arbitrary, and in fact depends on the phase of the constant term that is added to the superpotential in order to cancel the cosmological constant.

The most natural mechanism to suppress $`\varphi _B`$ is then approximate CP. Whatever physics is required to set the cosmological constant to (essentially) zero, should obey approximate CP, so that there is no large physical phase appearing from the gravitino mass.

We conclude that approximate CP is well motivated in models of dilaton dominated supersymmetry breaking. Eq. (5.1) must, in such a case, be an underestimate of the size of flavor changing couplings. For EDM contributions to be small in these models, the gravitino mass better give a small physical phase.

5.2. Alignment

In the framework of alignment, one does not assume any squark degeneracy. Instead, flavor violation is suppressed because the squark mass matrices are approximately diagonal in the quark mass basis. This is the case in models of Abelian flavor symmetries, in which the off-diagonal entries in both the quark mass matrices and in the squark mass matrices are suppressed by some power of a small parameter, $`\lambda `$, that quantifies the breaking of some Abelian flavor symmetry. A natural choice for the value of $`\lambda `$ is $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$, so we will take $`\lambda 0.2`$. One would naively expect the first two generation squark mixing to be of the order of $`\lambda `$. However, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ constraint is not satisfied with the ‘naive alignment’, $`K_{12}^d\lambda `$, and one has to construct more complicated models to achieve the required suppression . One can also construct models where $`\delta _{12}^d\lambda ^5`$ , but these models are highly constrained and almost unique. It is simpler to construct models where $`\delta _{12}^d\lambda ^3`$ but the CP violating phases are also suppressed . In this framework, approximate CP is then well motivated, though not unavoidable.

Note however that a basic assumption in the analyses mentioned above is that the Abelian horizontal symmetry is the only ingredient that plays a role in determining the squark mass-squared matrices. This assumption does not hold if there is a large RGE contribution from gaugino masses. If at the high scale the diagonal elements of the squark mass matrices are comparable to the gluino mass ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$), running down to low scales enhances $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2`$ by roughly a factor of 7. The off-diagonal elements of the squark mass matrices remain essentially unchanged. Therefore, ‘naive alignment’, that is, $`m_{12}^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2\lambda `$ at high scales, would lead to

$$\delta _{12}^d\frac{\lambda }{7}0.03.$$

This again motivates approximate CP. As concerns flavor diagonal phases, the question is more model dependent. There is however a way to suppress these phases without assuming approximate CP . The mechanism requires that CP is spontaneously broken by the same fields that break the flavor symmetry (“flavons”). It is based on the observation that a Yukawa coupling and the corresponding $`A`$ term carry the same horizontal charge and therefore their dependence on the flavon fields is similar. In particular, if a single flavon dominates a certain coupling, the CP phase is the same for the Yukawa coupling and for the corresponding $`A`$ term and the resulting $`\varphi _A`$ vanishes. Similarly, if the $`\mu `$ term and the $`B`$ term depend on one (and the same) flavon, $`\varphi _B`$ is suppressed.

We conclude that approximate CP is well motivated in the framework of Abelian horizontal symmetries, as it provides the most generic and easiest-to-implement mechanism to solve both the $`\epsilon _K`$ and the $`d_N`$ problems. One can construct models, however, in which the horizontal symmetry solves these problems even with phases of order one.

5.3. Non-Abelian horizontal symmetries

Non-Abelian horizontal symmetries can induce approximate degeneracy between the first two squark generations, thus relaxing the flavor and CP problems . A review of $`\epsilon _K`$ in this class of models can be found in . Quite generically, the supersymmetric contributions to $`\epsilon _K`$ are too large and require small phases (see, for example, the models of ref. ). There are however specific models where the $`\epsilon _K`$ problem is solved without the need for small phases . Furthermore, universal contributions from RGE running might further relax the problem. We conclude that, in the framework of non-Abelian horizontal symmetries, approximate CP is well motivated but not unavoidable.

As concerns flavor diagonal phases, it is difficult (though not entirely impossible) to avoid $`\varphi _A>\lambda ^20.04`$ . This, however, might be just enough to satisfy the $`d_N`$ constraint.

5.4. Heavy squarks

In models where the first two generation squarks are heavy, the basic mechanism to suppress flavor changing processes is actually flavor diagonal: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{1,2}}20\mathrm{TeV}`$. Naturalness does not allow higher masses, but this mass scale is not enough to satisfy even the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ constraint , and one has to invoke alignment, $`K_{12}^d\lambda `$. This is still not enough to satisfy the $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint of eq. (3.1), and approximate CP is again well motivated.

Two more comments are in order:

1. In this framework, gauginos are significantly lighter than the first two generation squarks, and so RGE cannot induce degeneracy.

2. The large mass of the squarks is enough to solve the EDM related problems, and so it is only the $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint that motivates approximate CP.

5.5. Anomaly Mediation

Another approach to solving the flavor problems of supersymmetric theories, as well as to obtaining a predictive spectrum, is known as Anomaly Mediation. In the presence of some truly “hidden” supersymmetry breaking sector, with no couplings to the Standard Model fields (apart from indirect couplings through the supergravity multiplet) the conformal anomaly of the Standard Model gives rise to soft supersymmetry breaking terms for the Standard Model fields . These terms are generated purely by gravitational effects and are given by

$$m_0^2(\mu )=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\gamma (\mu )}{\mathrm{ln}\mu }m_{3/2}^2,m_{1/2}(\mu )=\frac{\beta (\mu )}{g(\mu )}m_{3/2},A(\mu )=\frac{1}{2}\gamma (\mu )m_{3/2},$$

where $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are the appropriate beta function and anomalous dimension. Thus, apart from the Standard Model gauge and Yukawa couplings, the soft terms only involve the parameter $`m_{3/2}`$.

In general, naturalness considerations suggest that couplings of hidden and visible sectors should appear in the Kahler potential, leading to soft masses for scalars already at tree level, and certainly by one loop. As a result, one would expect the contributions (5.1) to be irrelevant.

However, the authors of  argued that in “sequestered sector models”, in which the visible sector fields and supersymmetry breaking fields live on different branes, separated by some distance, the anomaly mediated contribution (5.1) could be the dominant effect. This leads to a predictive picture for scalar masses. Since the soft terms (5.1) are generated by the Standard Model gauge and Yukawa couplings, they are universal, up to corrections involving the third generation Yukawas. However, the resulting slepton masses-squared are negative, so this model requires some modification. We will not attempt a complete review of this subject here. Our principal concerns are the sources of CP violation, and the extent to which the anomaly-mediated formulae receive corrections, leading to non-degeneracy of the squark masses.

For eqn. (5.1) to correctly give the leading order soft terms, it is necessary that all moduli obtain large masses before supersymmetry breaking, and that there be no Planck scale VEVs in the supersymmetry breaking sector . A possible scenario for this to happen is if all moduli but the fifth dimensional radius, $`R`$, sit at an enhanced symmetry point, and that $`R`$ obtains a large mass compared to the supersymmetry-breaking scale (say, by a racetrack mechanism).

Even in this case, however, there is a difficulty. One might expect that some of the moduli have masses well below the fundamental scale. If there are light moduli in the bulk, there are typically one-loop contributions to scalar masses squared from exchanges of bulk fields, proportional to $`m_{3/2}^2/R^3`$ times a loop factor .<sup>1</sup> There are potentially even larger corrections. At tree level, in the Horava-Witten picture, there are tadpoles for bulk fields, and these can easily lead to contributions which swamp those of (5.1). These issues are under investigation and will be reported elsewhere. Indeed, the authors of ref.  suggested that these contributions were universal, and could provide the necessary non-tachyonic contributions to scalar masses. We do not understand, however, the statement that these contributions are generically universal. In the case of, say, Horava-Witten theory compactified on a Calabi-Yau space, the couplings of the matter fields to the different bulk moduli are in general not the same. Since minimal AMSB gives $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\mathrm{slepton}}^20.05\stackrel{~}{m}_{\mathrm{squark}}^2`$, such non-universal contributions, if responsible for the positive part of the slepton masses, would violate the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ constraint (see (3.1)).

It is possible to suppress these contributions by taking $`R`$ to be large. To satisfy the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ constraint, one would need $`R>30`$, for which the 4d Planck scale is about a factor of 5 above the 5d Planck scale. In this case, approximate CP is well motivated. Large values of $`R`$, however, might be problematic, given Witten’s observation  that generically for large $`R`$ the gauge couplings are proportional to $`1/R`$.

If there are no light moduli, and if the contributions described above are adequately suppressed, some modification of the visible sector is required in order to generate acceptable slepton masses. Different such solutions have been suggested \[33--38\]. In some of these models, there are no new contributions to CP violation simply because there are few enough new parameters in the theory that they can all be chosen real by field redefinitions . Furthermore, it is possible to generate the $`\mu `$ term in these models from AMSB, so that $`\varphi _B`$ vanishes. These models are then similar to GMSB models from the point of view of CP violation. Approximate CP is not only unmotivated in these models, it is actually ruled out by $`\epsilon _K`$. Whether such a situation can actually be realized in a fundamental theory is unclear.

We conclude then, that in generic sequestered sector models it is difficult to obtain large degeneracy; approximate CP is well motivated. It is conceivable that there might be theories with a high degree of degeneracy, or with no new sources of CP violation. In such theories, approximate CP would be ruled out.

5.6. Gaugino Mediation

Gaugino mediation  is in many ways similar to anomaly mediation, and poses similar issues. These models also suppress dangerous tree level contact terms by invoking extra dimensions, with the Standard Model matter fields localized on one brane and the supersymmetry breaking sector on another brane. In this case, however, the Standard Model gauge fields are in the bulk, so gauginos get masses at tree level, and as a result scalar masses are generated by running. Scalar masses are therefore universal. Furthermore, the soft terms typically involve only one new parameter, namely, the singlet $`F`$ VEV that gives rise to gaugino masses. Therefore, they do not induce any new CP violation. If there are no additional contributions to the soft terms, there is no motivation for approximate CP.

Again, however, if there are non-universal tree and one loop contributions to scalar masses, as in the Horava-Witten picture, significant violations of degeneracy and proportionality can be expected, and approximate CP is well motivated.

6. The $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ Problem

If all phases and, in particular, the KM phase, are small, then the Standard Model cannot account for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$. Consequently, not only $`\epsilon _K`$ but also $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ have to be accounted for by supersymmetric contributions.

A typical supersymmetric contribution to $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon |=58B_G& \left[\frac{\alpha _s(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{\alpha _s(500\mathrm{GeV})}\right]^{23/21}\left(\frac{158MeV}{m_s+m_d}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times & \left(\frac{500\mathrm{GeV}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}\right)\left|m\left[(\delta _{LR}^d)_{12}(\delta _{LR}^d)_{21}^{}\right]\right|.\hfill \end{array}$$

Consequently, the supersymmetric contribution saturates $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ for

$$m\left[(\delta _{LR}^d)_{12}(\delta _{LR}^d)_{21}^{}\right]\lambda ^7\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{500\mathrm{GeV}}\right)$$

where, motivated by flavor symmetries, we parameterize the suppression by powers of $`\lambda 0.2`$. (Note that the related hadronic uncertainties are large, and a very conservative estimate would give $`\lambda ^9`$ as a lower bound.)

Without proportionality, a naive guess would give

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\delta _{LR}^d)_{12}& \frac{m_s|V_{us}|}{\stackrel{~}{m}}\lambda ^{56}\frac{m_t}{\stackrel{~}{m}},\hfill \\ \hfill (\delta _{LR}^d)_{21}& \frac{m_d}{|V_{us}|\stackrel{~}{m}}\lambda ^{56}\frac{m_t}{\stackrel{~}{m}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

This is not far from the value required to account for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ . With small phases of order $`\lambda ^2`$, the situation is still very promising. The problem is, however, that eq. (6.1) gives an overestimate of the supersymmetric contribution in viable models of supersymmetry breaking that have appeared in the literature.

With dilaton dominance, the $`A`$ terms are proportional to the Yukawa terms at tree level, so that there is a suppression of $`𝒪(\alpha _X/\pi )10^2`$ compared to (6.1).

With alignment, the $`\epsilon _K`$ constraint requires that the relevant terms are suppressed by at least a factor of $`\lambda ^2`$ compared to (6.1) .

With heavy squarks, a more likely estimate is

$$(\delta _{LR}^d)_{ij}\frac{m_Z(M_d)_{ij}}{(10\mathrm{TeV})^2},$$

which suppresses the relevant matrix elements by a factor of order $`10^4`$ compared to (6.1). (One can perhaps construct models with enhanced $`A`$ terms, resulting in $`(\delta _{LR}^d)_{ij}(M_d)_{ij}/(10\mathrm{TeV})`$, but even in this case there is a suppression of order $`10^2`$ compared to (6.1).)

With a horizontal U(2) symmetry, the two contributions in (6.1) cancel each other. (More generally, this happens for a symmetric $`A`$ matrix with $`A_{11}=0`$ .)

It seems then that generically, in all the frameworks discussed above, approximate CP is inconsistent with $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon =𝒪(10^3)`$ (see also ). There are three possibilities:

1. The hadronic parameters (particularly $`B_G`$ and $`m_s`$) are at the extreme of their ‘reasonable ranges’ and supersymmetry with flavor suppression of order $`10^110^2`$ compared to (6.1) does account for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ .

2. Approximate CP is not realized in nature. The CP problems of high energy supersymmetry breaking may be solved in a different way (see e.g. ). Alternatively the scale of supersymmetry breaking could be low.

3. The structure of the LR block in the squark mass-squared matrices is different from all models discussed above.

As an example of the third possibility, consider the proposal of ref. . It is shown there that it is possible to account for both $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ by supersymmetric contributions with (i) $`|(\delta _{LL}^d)_{12}|10^310^2`$ with a phase of $`𝒪(1)`$; and (ii) $`|(\delta _{LR}^d)_{22}|10^2`$. The first factor accounts for $`\epsilon _K`$ and the product of the two insertions for $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$. Note that the value of $`|(\delta _{LR}^d)_{22}|`$ is much larger than our naive estimate, $`m_s/\stackrel{~}{m}10^3`$. The proposed mechanism is to have a very large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, in which case it is the contribution proportional to $`\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (rather than to $`A^d`$) that dominates $`\delta _{LR}^d`$.

Can this mechanism be modified to the case of approximate CP? For $`\delta _{LR}^d`$, approximate CP is actually useful since, to satisfy the $`d_N`$ constraint, the large value of $`\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$ requires a very small $`\varphi _B`$. As concerns the $`(\delta _{LL}^d)`$, ref.  considers a phase of order one. But the phase can be taken to be small with the absolute value as large as allowed by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ constraint. The main problem is that a very strong suppression of $`|(\delta _{RR}^d)_{12}|`$ is required.

Another possibility is that the flavor symmetry is an R symmetry, which would generate a different structure in $`M^d`$ and $`A^d`$.

We emphasize that there is no fundamental reason that the $`A`$-terms would not saturate (6.1). The fact that this does not happen in existing models of approximate CP only means that finding an attractive model of approximate CP that is consistent with the $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ constraints is still an important task for model builders.

7. Conclusions

All measured CP violations, namely the $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ parameters in neutral $`K`$ decays, are small. Recent measurements of the CP asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$  yield an average of $`a_{\psi K_S}=0.42\pm 0.24`$, which still leaves open the possibility that this asymmetry is also small .

The Standard Model explains the smallness of $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\epsilon ^{}`$ as a result of small flavor changing couplings, while the Kobayashi-Maskawa phase is required to be large. The large phase leads to a prediction that $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ is large, roughly $`a_{\psi K_S}0.50.9`$. The same situation generically applies in supersymmetric models with a low breaking scale, such as gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking.

Supersymmetric models with a high breaking scale often give unacceptably large contributions to EDMs and have insufficient flavor suppression for $`\epsilon _K`$. In such models, approximate CP, that is the smallness of all CP violating phases, is therefore well motivated. This applies to models of dilaton dominance, Abelian and non-Abelian flavor symmetries, heavy squarks and very likely also to anomaly-mediated and gaugino-mediated supersymmetry breaking. The smallness of $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ is then explained by the smallness of the phases. In contrast to the Standard Model and to GMSB, CP asymmetries in $`B`$ decays and, in particular, $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ are predicted to be small.

In the near future, $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ will be experimentally determined with much better accuracy. It could be that the value of the asymmetry will be found to lie within the Standard Model range. In such a case, the idea of approximate CP will be excluded. Within the supersymmetric framework, low energy breaking will be favored. Models with high breaking scale will not be excluded, but the CP problems of these models will become even more puzzling.

It could also be that the value of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ will be found to be small. In such a case, the Standard Model will be excluded together with simple GMSB models. Models of high scale supersymmetry breaking will be favored. Finding attractive mechanisms for producing large enough $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ and improving existing suggestions for inducing approximate CP from fundamental theories will become important challenges.

Acknowledgments

We thank Alon Faraggi, Michael Graesser and Scott Thomas for useful discussions. This research project is supported by the United States $``$ Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF). The work of M.D. is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy. Y.N. is supported by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and by the Minerva Foundation (Munich).

References

relax M. Dine, R. G. Leigh and D. A. MacIntire, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2030 (1992) \[hep-th/9205011\]. relax K. Choi, D. B. Kaplan and A. E. Nelson, Nucl. Phys. B391, 515 (1993) \[hep-ph/9205202\]. relax G. Eyal and Y. Nir, Nucl. Phys. B528, 21 (1998) \[hep-ph/9801411\]. relax K.S. Babu and S.M. Barr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2831 (1994) \[hep-ph/9309249\]. relax F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B477, 321 (1996) \[hep-ph/9604387\]. relax W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B121, 321 (1983). relax J. Polchinski and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B125, 393 (1983). relax W. Fischler, S. Paban and S. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B289, 373 (1992) \[hep-ph/9205233\]. relax M. Dugan, B. Grinstein and L.J. Hall, Nucl. Phys. B255, 413 (1985). relax S. A. Abel and J. M. Frere, Phys. Rev. D55, 1623 (1997) \[hep-ph/9608251\]. relax S. Baek and P. Ko, Phys. Lett. B462, 95 (1999) \[hep-ph/9904283\]. relax G. C. Branco, G. C. Cho, Y. Kizukuri and N. Oshimo, Phys. Lett. B337, 316 (1994) \[hep-ph/9408229\]. relax T. Goto, T. Nihei and Y. Okada, Phys. Rev. D53, 5233 (1996) \[hep-ph/9510286\]; Erratum-ibid. D54, 5904 (1996). relax K. S. Babu, C. Kolda and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3070 (1996) \[hep-ph/9605408\]. relax M. Dine, Y. Nir and Y. Shirman, Phys. Rev. D55, 1501 (1997) \[hep-ph/9607397\]. relax J. Louis and Y. Nir, Nucl. Phys. B447, 18 (1995) \[hep-ph/9411429\]. relax M. Dine and M. Graesser, To appear. relax A. Brignole, L. E. Ibanez and C. Munoz, Nucl. Phys. B422, 125 (1994) \[hep-ph/9308271\]. relax R. Barbieri, J. Louis and M. Moretti, Phys. Lett. B312, 451 (1993) \[hep-ph/9305262\]. relax Y. Nir and N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B309, 337 (1993) \[hep-ph/9304307\]. relax M. Leurer, Y. Nir and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B420, 468 (1994) \[hep-ph/9310320\]. relax Y. Nir and R. Rattazzi, Phys. Lett. B382, 363 (1996) \[hep-ph/9603233\]. relax M. Dine, R. Leigh and A. Kagan, Phys. Rev. D48, 4269 (1993) \[hep-ph/9304299\]. relax Y. Grossman, Y. Nir and R. Rattazzi, in Heavy Flavours II, eds. A.J. Buras and M. Lindner (World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore), \[hep-ph/9701231\]. relax R. Barbieri, G. Dvali and L. J. Hall, Phys. Lett. B377, 76 (1996) \[hep-ph/9512388\]. relax C. D. Carone, L. J. Hall and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. D54, 2328 (1996) \[hep-ph/9602364\]. relax R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, S. Raby and A. Romanino, Nucl. Phys. B493, 3 (1997) \[hep-ph/9610449\]. relax A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, F. Lepeintre and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2300 (1997) \[hep-ph/9610252\]. relax L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. B557, 79 (1999) \[hep-th/9810155\]. relax G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty, H. Murayama and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 9812, 027 (1998) \[hep-ph/9810442\]. relax J. A. Bagger, T. Moroi and E. Poppitz, JHEP 0004, 009 (2000) \[hep-th/9911029\]. relax E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B471, 135 (1996) \[hep-th/9602070\]. relax A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 9905, 013 (1999) \[hep-ph/9903448\]. relax E. Katz, Y. Shadmi and Y. Shirman, JHEP 9908, 015 (1999) \[hep-ph/9906296\]. relax Z. Chacko, M. A. Luty, E. Ponton, Y. Shadmi and Y. Shirman, hep-ph/0006047. relax Z. Chacko, M. A. Luty, I. Maksymyk and E. Ponton, JHEP 0004, 001 (2000) \[hep-ph/9905390\]. relax I. Jack and D. R. Jones, Phys. Lett. B491, 151 (2000) \[hep-ph/0006116\]; Phys. Lett. B482, 167 (2000) \[hep-ph/0003081\]. relax B. C. Allanach and A. Dedes, JHEP 0006, 017 (2000) \[hep-ph/0003222\]. relax D. E. Kaplan, G. D. Kribs and M. Schmaltz, Phys. Rev. D 62, 035010 (2000) \[hep-ph/9911293\]. relax Z. Chacko, M. A. Luty, A. E. Nelson and E. Ponton, JHEP 0001, 003 (2000) \[hep-ph/9911323\]. relax A. J. Buras, G. Colangelo, G. Isidori, A. Romanino and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B566, 3 (2000) \[hep-ph/9908371\]. relax A. Masiero and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 907 (1999) \[hep-ph/9903363\]. relax G. Eyal, A. Masiero, Y. Nir and L. Silvestrini, JHEP 9911, 032 (1999) \[hep-ph/9908382\]. relax R. Barbieri, R. Contino and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B578, 153 (2000) \[hep-ph/9908255\]. relax A. Masiero, M. Piai and O. Vives, hep-ph/0012096. relax S. Baek, J. H. Jang, P. Ko and J. H. Park, Phys. Rev. D62, 117701 (2000) \[hep-ph/9907572\]. relax T. Affolder et al., CDF collaboration, Phys. Rev. D61, 072005 (2000) \[hep-ex/9909003\]. relax D. Hitlin, BaBar collaboration, plenary talk in ICHEP 2000 (Osaka, Japan, July 31, 2000), SLAC-PUB-8540. relax H. Aihara, Belle collaboration, plenary talk in ICHEP 2000 (Osaka, Japan, July 31, 2000). relax G. Eyal, Y. Nir and G. Perez, JHEP 0008, 028 (2000) \[hep-ph/0008009\].


format: text

text:
# 𝛾𝛾 cross-sections and 𝛾𝛾 colliders

## 1  Introduction

The subject of total $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross-section ($`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}`$) is a very important one, both from a theoretical point of view of understanding calculation of total/inelastic hadronic cross-sections and a much more pragmatic one of being able to predict the hadronic backgrounds at the future linear colliders 1  due to $`\gamma \gamma `$ processes. The recent data on energy dependence of $`\sigma _{\gamma p}`$ and $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ available from HERA 2 ; 2'  and LEP 3 ; 4  respectively, have established that these cross-sections rise with energy. They have provided us with an additional laboratory to test/develope the models for calculation of total hadronic cross-sections 5 . However $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{tot}`$ and $`\sigma _{\gamma p}^{tot}`$ is measured by studying the reactions $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}X`$ and $`epe\gamma peX`$ respectively. The unfolding of $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross-sections from the measured $`e^+e^{}`$ cross-sections is a major source of error in the measurement of $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ . This is exemplified by the dependence of $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{tot}`$ presented by LEP collaborations on the Monte Carlo used for unfolding; the difference in the normalization of the extracted cross-sections using different Monte Carlos can be as much as 50% at the high energy end 4  and can be seen in the data shown in Fig. 2 later. Hence a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider with $`\sqrt{s_{\gamma \gamma }}`$ in the range 300-500 GeV will provide an opportunity for an unambiguous and accurate measurement of $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}`$. With such data, we will have information for $`\gamma p`$, $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`pp(p\overline{p})`$ for similar range of $`\sqrt{s}`$ values. Such information will undoubtedly provide important pointers to arrive at a better theoretical understanding, from first principles, of total/inelastic cross-sections of hadronic processes.

Fig. 1 shows the $`\sigma _{pp/\overline{p}p}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$, $`(3/2)250\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ and $`((3/2)250)^2`$ $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ in the same graph. The multiplication factors are guided by simple VMD considerations. In this figure we have included the latest L3 data from LEP-II 15 . We see in the figure that the available data show indications of somewhat higher rate of rise with energy for $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}(\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{tot}})`$ as compared to $`\sigma _{pp/p\overline{p}}^{tot}`$. Hence $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{tot}`$ will be an important quantity to be measured accurately at the future $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders. In this note, we assess the success of various models for $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross-sections, in ‘explaining’ currently available data and point out the precision necessary to be able to distinguish between different models 6 .

## 2 Theoretical Models :

There are two different classes of models used to calculate the $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross-sections.

1\] Models which treat a photon like a proton: these models obtain the $`\gamma \gamma `$ total cross sections through extrapolations of some or all of the proton properties. There exist three different types.

(a) Regge/Pomeron type models where the (increase) decrease of the cross-sections with energy is given by the (Pomeron) Regge part. These models assume factorization of residues at the pole. The total cross-section is written as

$$\sigma _{ab}^{\mathrm{tot}}=Y_{ab}s^\eta +X_{ab}s^ϵ.$$
(1)
The coeffecients X,Y for the $`\gamma \gamma `$ case are determined 7  by using the fitted values of X,Y for the $`pp(\overline{p}p)`$ and $`\gamma p`$ case. A somewhat more complicated model 8  gives similar predictions.

(b) In a model by C. Bourelly et al, 9  $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ is obtained by a straightforward scaling of $`\sigma _{pp}`$ viz., $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ = A$`\sigma _{pp}`$

(c)A model by Badelek and colalborators 10 (BKKS) again presents an extrapolation of the knowledge on $`\sigma _{pp}`$ coupled with VMD ideas. They fit the parameters by using data on $`\sigma _{pp}`$ and then make predictions for $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$.

2\] The second type of models are the QCD based/inspired models. In this case, the rise of the cross-sections with energy is driven by the rise in production of small transverse momentum jets in hadronic collisions. In the case of (say)$`\gamma p`$ collisions, $`\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is given by

$$\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{tot}}=2P_{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{had}}d^2\stackrel{}{b}[1e^{\chi _I^{\gamma p}}cos\chi _R^{\gamma p}]$$
(2)
where $`P_{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{had}}`$ is the hadronization probability for a photon given by

$$P_{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{had}}=P^{\mathrm{had}}=\underset{V=\rho ,\omega ,\varphi }{}\frac{4\pi \alpha }{f_V^2}\frac{1}{240}.$$
(3)
and $`\chi _R^{\gamma p}`$ = 0. Different models using the minijet idea differ in their choices of the imaginary part of the eikonal $`\chi _I`$. While calculating the total/elastic/inelastic cross-sections for the case of $`pp/\overline{p}p`$, $`P_{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{had}}`$ in Eq. 2, is replaced by unity and for the case of $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions by $`(P^{\mathrm{had}})^2`$ respectively.

(a) For the eikonalized minijet model EMM 11  we have

$$2\chi _I^{\gamma p}(s,b)=A_{\gamma p}(b)\left[\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{soft}}(s)+\frac{1}{P^{\mathrm{had}}}\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{jet}}(s,p_{Tmin})\right]$$
(4)
Here $`A_{\gamma p}(b)`$ is the overlap function in the transverse space for the partons in colliding hadrons, $`\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{soft}}`$ is the nonperturbative parameter describing the soft contribution to the cross-section and it is of the order of typical hadronic cross-sections. $`\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is the hard jet cross-section obtained by integrating the usual jet cross-sections for $`\gamma p`$ collisions from a lower cut-off on $`p_T`$: $`p_{Tmin}`$. $`A_{\gamma p}(b)`$ here is modelled in terms of the Fourier Transform of the form factors or that of the measured transverse momentum distribution of partons in the photon and proton.

Once the various parameters are fitted using $`\gamma p`$ data, the corresponding parameters for the $`\gamma \gamma `$ case are obtained assuming

$$\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{soft}}=\frac{2}{3}\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{soft}},P_{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{had}}=(P^{\mathrm{had}})^2.$$

All the rest of the quantities are defined similar to the $`\gamma p`$ case.

(b) In another formulation of the EMM 12 , one calculates A(b) in terms of transverse momentum distribution for the partons. However, instead of using the experimentally measured trnsaverse momentum distribution, one calculates it in terms of soft gluon emission from the initial state valence quarks. This has the advantage of being able to produce also the initial fall of the $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ with energy at low energies.

(c) In a third QCD based model 13  the eikonal as well as the overlap function are obtained by using factorization and simple scaling from the $`pp`$ case. The imaginary part of the eikonal in this case is given by

$$\chi _I=P_{gg}+P_{gq}+P_{qg}.$$
(5)
with $`P_{ij}=W_{ij}(b,\mu _{ij})\sigma _{ij}(s)`$ where $`W(b,\mu )`$ for each case given by,

$$W(b,\mu )=\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^2}e^{i\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{q}}|F(q)|^2.$$
(6)
$`F(q)`$ here is taken to be the dipole form factor. The various parameters $`\mu _{ij}`$ and $`\sigma _{ij}`$ are fitted to the $`pp/p\overline{p}`$ data. The corresponding ones for the $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ case are then determined by simple scaling arguments implied by the Quark-Parton model.

## 3 Predictions of various models for $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ :

Fig. 2 shows a comparison of the current data with the prediction of various ‘photon-like a proton’ models. As one can see, all these models have some difficulty producing the faster rise shown by the data for $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$.

Here we have included the predictions of two QCD based models, the BN model 12  and the Aspen Model 13 , as well. We do see that the BN model does quite well with the fall at low energies as well. In Fig. 3 we compare the predictions of the EMM model in the total formulation for $`\sigma _{\gamma p}`$, with the data.

Note that the newer data on $`\sigma _{\gamma p}^{tot}`$ obtained by the extrapolation of the DIS data to photoproduction limit 2'  lies consistently above the $`\sigma _{\gamma p}^{tot}`$ measured previously 2 . The A(b) here is modelled as the Fourier Transform of the product of electromagnetic form factors for the proton and the experimentally measured transverse momentum distribution for photonic partons. Here we have used the central value of the parameter $`k_0`$ = 0.66 where the transverse momentum distribution is measured 14  to be $``$ $`1/(k_T^2+k_0^2)`$. Having fixed all the values by $`\sigma _{\gamma p}^{\mathrm{tot}}`$, if we now calculate $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ we get predictions shown in Fig. 4.

In this figure we have the $`189`$ GeV data from the OPAL 3  and L3 4  collaborations. Fig. 5 shows the $`A_{\gamma \gamma }(b)`$ 11  for different values of $`k_0`$, allowed by the experimental measurement 14  of $`k_0=0.66\pm 0.22`$.

As $`k_0`$ decreases (increases), the curves in Fig. 4 will move up (down). Actually Fig. 6 shows the prediction of the EMM model using $`k_0=0.4`$ along

with the same OPAL data as in Fig. 4 and the latest L3 data 15 . Values of all the other parameters which have been used are as given in the figure. We see that the EMM model is able to produce the trend of the faster rise quite well. Fig. 7 shows a comparison of all the model predictions with each other and the data. We notice that the rate of rise of total cross-sections in the EMM/BKKS models is quite different from those in Regge-Pomeron type models.

The tables 1 and 2, give the precision with which $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ needs to be measured, at the $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders with $`\sqrt{s_{\gamma \gamma }}`$ in the range of 300-500 GeV, to be able to distinguish between the different ’photon is like a proton’ models as well as the EMM/BKKS models. As we can see, a precision of $`7\%`$ is required to distinguish among the different ’photon like a proton’ models from one another, whereas only a precision of $`20\%`$ is required to distinguish these predictions from those of the QCD based/inspired models which tend to predict a faster rise, in the energy range $`300<\sqrt{s_{\gamma \gamma }}<500`$ GeV. With $`\gamma \gamma `$ cm energy $`700`$ GeV, the difference between the predictions of the Aspen 13  and EMM total formulation 6  can be as large as a factor of 2.

However, when these $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross-sections are convoluted with the spectrum of the bremsstrahlung photons to calculate $`\sigma `$ ($`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}X)`$ using the WW approximation, we find that these big differences get reduced to about $`30\%`$. this is shown in Fig. 8. This demonstrates the much more superior role that the $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders can play in deciding which is the right theoretical framework for calculation of total cross-sections .

## 4 Conclusions

Thus in conclusion we can say the following

1. ’Photon is like a proton’ models predict a rise of $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ with $`\sqrt{s_{\gamma \gamma }}`$, slower than shown by the data; i.e. value of predicted $`ϵ`$ is lower than what the data seem to show.
2. The extrapolated $`\gamma p`$ data seem to show similar trends.
3. The predictions of the EMM model show good agreement with the data.
4. Even in the EMM formulations use of Bloch Nordsieck ideas to calculate the overlap function $`A(b)`$ seems to slow down this rise.
5. An obvious improvement in the EMM models is to try and determine $`A(b)`$ by more refined ‘theoretical’ ideas or determine it in terms of the multiple parton interactions measured at the HERA/Tevatron collider.
6. However, extraction of $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\sigma _{\gamma p}`$ from $`\sigma _{e^+e^{}}`$ and $`\sigma _{ep}`$ respectively, is no mean task and has large uncertainties. Moreover, a difference of about a factor two in the predicted values of $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ in different models, gets reduced to only about $`30\%`$ when folded with the photon spectrum expected in the WW approximation in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. While the good part is that it reduces the uncertainty in our predictions of the hadronic background at the $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders due to the corresponding uncertainties in $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }^{\mathrm{tot}}`$, the studies of two-photon hadronic cross-sections at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, will not be very efficient in shedding much light on the theortical models used to calculate them.
7. Therefore measurements of total cross-sections at a $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider with its monochromatic photon beam, in the energy range $`300<\sqrt{s_{\gamma \gamma }}<500`$ GeV, can play a very useful role in furthering our understanding of the ’high’ energy photon interactions. A precision of $`78\%(89\%)`$ is required to distinguish among the different formulations of the EMM models (models which treat photon like a proton), where as a precision of $`20\%`$ is required to distinguish betwen these two types of models.

## 5 Acknowledgements:

We grateful to A. de Roeck for the suggestion to study the issue of precision of measurement at the linear colliders.


text:
# References

Inflationary scenarios have been studied as the most simple idea to solve both the flatness and the horizon problems naturally . However, standard inflationary models  have demerits, such as we must introduce an unsatisfactory quantity like inflaton and need a fine-tuning to get a quantitatively reasonable scenarios. On the other hand, there is an alternative model by Starobinsky , who propose a scenario that inflation is driven dynamically due to one-loop corrections by quantized matter fields. He originally consider unstable de Sitter phase by adjusting the regularization sheme-dependent term properly because inflation has to end at the low-energy phase. However, even in this scenario, a fine-tuning of the scheme-dependent parameter is necessary to obtain sufficiently long lifetime .

The inflation models mentioned above are based on semi-classical arguments. On the other hand, it is believed that quantum geometry solve many problems in quantum cosmology . In this letter we show that quantum geometry can really solve such fine-tuning problems. The idea is based on the recent developments  in which we show that the effective action of 4D quantum geometry has a regularization scheme-independent form and may be uniquely determined according to conformal matter contents. The equation of motion of this effective action has a stable de Sitter solution. A mechanism to end the inflationary phase is given by the dynamics of the traceless.

Let us first summarize the results given in ref. . The form of effective action of 4D quantum geometry is strongly constrained by diffeomorphism invariance/background-metric independence . It is because a general coordinate transformation in quantum geometry is related to a conformal change of the background metric so that the integrability condition  of conformal anomalies  plays an important role to determine the effective action. Really, as discussed in , the integrability condition of conformal anomalies not only restricts matter fields to be conformally invariant, but also determines many indefiniteness in the gravity sector. To preserve diffeomorphism invariance at the quantum level, we must add the Wess-Zumino action to an invariant action and quantize such a combined action as a tree action in a self-consistent mannar . The scheme-dependent terms which appear in loop effects of the combined theory cancel with the corresponding terms in the Wess-Zumino action, and then diffeomorphism invariance is realized .

We consider a perturbation theory in which the traceless mode is expanded by the dimensionless coupling, $`t`$, as $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=(\widehat{g}\text{e}^{th})_{\mu \nu }`$ . Here, the metric is decomposed as $`g_{\mu \nu }=\text{e}^{2\varphi }\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$. On the other hand, the conformal mode, $`\varphi `$, is evaluated exactly, because we treat conformal anomalies. Thus we obtain a regularization scheme-independent form of 4D quantum geometry effective action (in Lorentzian signature) ,222The scheme-dependent term has a non-invariant form, $`\overline{R}^2`$, which have to cancel out from the requirement of diffeomorphism invariance. While an invariant $`R^2`$ term might appear at least from order $`t_r^4`$ .

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{f}{4}C_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_4^C}{\mu ^4}\right)C^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\frac{e}{8}𝒢\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_4}𝒢\right\}+I_{LE},$$
(1)
where $`I_{LE}`$ represents lower derivative actions which include actions of conformally invariant matter fields and the Einstein-Hilbert action. $`C_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }`$ is the Weyl tensor and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4^C=\mathrm{}^2+\mathrm{}`$ is an appropriate conformally covariant operator for the Weyl tensor. The explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4^C`$ is unknown, but it is known that the conformal variation of this term produces the square of the Weyl tensor . $`𝒢`$ is defined by the following combination:

$$𝒢=G\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{}R,$$
(2)
where $`G`$ is the Euler density defined by

$$G=R_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }R^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }4R_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu }+R^2.$$
(3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$ is the conformally covariant 4th order operator

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_4=\mathrm{}^2+2R^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu \frac{2}{3}R\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{3}(^\mu R)_\mu ,$$
(4)
which satisfies $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4=\text{e}^{4\varphi }\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_4`$ locally for a scalar.

The coefficients $`f`$ and $`e`$ are scheme-independent. They are expanded by the renormalized coupling, $`t_r`$, as

$$f=f_0+f_1t_r^2+\mathrm{},e=e_0+e_1t_r^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(5)
Here, $`f_0`$ and $`e_0`$ have already been computed by one-loop diagrams as

$`f_0={\displaystyle \frac{N_X}{120}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_W}{40}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_A}{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{199}{30}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}},`$ (6)
$`e_0={\displaystyle \frac{N_X}{360}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11N_W}{720}}+{\displaystyle \frac{31N_A}{180}}+{\displaystyle \frac{87}{20}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{90}},`$ (7)
where the first three contributions of each coefficient come from $`N_X`$ conformal scalar fields, $`N_W`$ Weyl fermions and $`N_A`$ gauge fields, respectively . The fourth and the last ones come from the traceless mode  and the conformal mode , respectively. The coefficients $`f_1`$ and $`e_1`$ are contributions from not only two-loop diagrams, but also one-loop diagrams of order $`t_r^2`$ which include vertices of the Wess-Zumino action .

The beta function for the coupling, $`t_r`$, is given by $`\beta =\frac{f}{2}t_r^3`$. Since $`f_0`$ is negative, 4D quantum geometry is asymptotically free. Here, note that, although background-metric independence includes an invariance under any confromal change of the background metric, the usual $`\beta `$-function is not needed to vanish. This nature is because there is a conformal anomaly, or the Wess-Zumino action in 4 dimensions .

Consider the equation of motion for the conformal mode,

$$\frac{f}{(4\pi )^2}\sqrt{\overline{g}}\overline{C}^2\frac{e}{(4\pi )^2}\sqrt{\overline{g}}\left(4\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_4\varphi +\overline{G}\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}\overline{R}\right)+\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi }I_{EH}(g)=0.$$
(8)
Here, matter fields are conformally invariant so that there are no contributions to this equation of motion. The Einstein-Hilbert action has the following form:

$$I_{EH}=6m^2d^4x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\text{e}^{\alpha \varphi }\widehat{}^\lambda \varphi \widehat{}_\lambda \varphi +o(t_r^2),$$
(9)
where, $`\alpha `$ is defined through the anomalous dimension of $`m`$ by the relation $`\alpha =2+\gamma _m`$. The lowest order of the anomalous dimension is computed by one-loop diagrams as $`\gamma _m=\frac{\alpha ^2}{4e_0}`$ . However, as for the minimal Standard Model with $`N_X=4`$, $`N_W=45`$ and $`N_A=12`$, for example, the anomalous dimension is sufficiently small as $`\gamma _m1/e_0=0.14`$. Thus, in the following, we take the value of $`\alpha `$ approximately to be the classical one, $`\alpha =2`$.

Since the dynamics of the traceless mode is asymptotically free, in the high-energy region, the coupling, $`t_r`$, becomes small and we can neglect it. Further, we neglect the space-coordinate dependence of the conformal mode. We also consider the conformally flat metric, because it is simple and also the recent experiments suggest the flat universe , as

$$ds^2=a(\eta )^2\left(d\eta ^2+(dx^i)^2\right).$$
(10)
Now, equation (8) has a quite simple form,

$$\frac{4e}{(4\pi )^2}_\eta ^4\mathrm{log}a+12m^2a^2\left(_\eta ^2\mathrm{log}a+(_\eta \mathrm{log}a)^2\right)=0.$$
(11)
Here, we introduce the proper time as $`d\tau =a(\eta )d\eta `$. and use the variable $`H=\frac{\stackrel{.}{a}}{a}`$, where a dot denotes a derivative with respect to the proper time. We then obtain the equation of motion for $`H`$ as

$$\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{H}+7H\stackrel{..}{H}+4\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{.}{H}}+18H^2\stackrel{.}{H}+6H^4\frac{3M^2}{e}\left(\stackrel{.}{H}+2H^2\right)=0,$$
(12)
where $`M=4\pi m`$. This equation has a de Sitter solution

$$\stackrel{.}{H}=0,H=H_0,$$
(13)
where $`H_0=\pm \frac{M}{\sqrt{e}}`$. The plus sign gives an exponentially expanding solution, $`a(\tau )=a_0\text{e}^{M\tau /\sqrt{e}}`$.

Next, we discuss the stability of this solution. Consider a small deviation from the de Sitter solution as $`H=H_0(1+\delta )`$. Substituting this into equation (12) and neglecting $`o(\delta ^2)`$ terms, we obtain

$$\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{\delta }+7H_0\stackrel{..}{\delta }+15H_0^2\stackrel{.}{\delta }+12H_0^3\delta =0.$$
(14)
We here consider a solution of the type $`\delta =\text{e}^{\kappa \tau }`$. We then obtain the equation, $`\kappa ^3+7H_0\kappa ^2+15H_0^2\kappa +12H_0^3=0`$. This equation has three solutions

$$4H_0,\left(\frac{3}{2}\pm i\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\right)H_0.$$
(15)
For $`H_0>0`$, all solutions have $`Re(\kappa )<0`$. Thus, the de Sitter solution is stable.

Inflation must end at the low-energy region. In our model a classical limit is given by $`e\mathrm{}`$. The asymptotic freedom suggests that this limit will be realized at the low-energy region where the coupling, $`t_r`$, diverges. Large fluctuations of the gravitational fields freeze and small fluctuations ruled by the Einstein-Hilbert action survive at the low-energy region. Thus, the lifetime of the inflationary phase is given by the order of the inverse of the scale, $`\mu `$.

A stable inflationary scenario is also considered in , in which, however, there is no dynamical reason to end inflation because their argument is semi-classical.

There are some problems in our scenario. One is that we set the cosmological constant vanishing as in the original paper by Starobinsky, because whether the de Sitter solution exists or not depends on the initial value of the cosmological constant. The other is that we here restrict the solution of the equation of motion as in the form (10) where the space-coordinate dependence of the conformal mode is neglected. In our scenario, vanishing of the scalar curvature is realized by the dynamics of the traceless mode. This is different from a mechanism discussed in , in which the dynamics of the 4 derivative theory of the conformal mode gives a vanishing expectation value of the scalar curvature at the long distance. In any case, the dynamics of the gravitational fields would solve problems in inflationary cosmology.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan.