text:
# Spectral triples and associated Connes-de Rham complex for the quantum 𝑆𝑈(2) and the quantum sphere

## 1 Introduction

Given a noncommutative space, there is no general method for constructing a spectral triple on it. Even though there are general results asserting the existence of enough unbounded Kasparov modules (), in concrete examples, it is often difficult to carry out this prescription. In , the authors characterized all spectral triples for the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ of continuous functions on $`SU_q(2)`$ represented on its $`L_2`$-space, assuming equivariance under the (co-)action of the group itself. In the present article, we take the more standard representation of $`𝒜`$ on $`=L_2()L_2()`$ (see (1.3) below), and impose equivariance condition under the action of the group $`S^1\times S^1`$. Employing similar technques as in , we arrive at a spectral triple of dimension 2. One advantage of this triple is that it is relatively easy to compute the associated Connes-de Rham complex, which we give in section 3. This complex is supported on $`\{0,1\}`$, and thus captures the topological dimension, which can be seen to be 1 from the following well-known exact sequence

$$0𝒦C(S^1)𝒜C(S^1)0.$$
(1.1)
The complex of square integrable forms were introduced by Frolich et. al in . We also present calculations of these $`L_2`$-forms for this spectral triple.

In the last section, we briefly indicate how to carry out a similar construction of a spectral triple and the associated calculus for the quantum sphere $`S_{qc}^2`$.

Let us start with a brief description of the $`C^{}`$-algebra of continuous functions on the quantum $`SU(2)`$, to be denoted by $`𝒜`$. This is the canonical $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by two elements $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ satisfying the following relations:

$$\alpha ^{}\alpha +\beta ^{}\beta =I,\alpha \alpha ^{}+q^2\beta \beta ^{}=I,\alpha \beta q\beta \alpha =0,\alpha \beta ^{}q\beta ^{}\alpha =0,\beta ^{}\beta =\beta \beta ^{}.$$
(1.2)
The $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ can be described more concretely as follows. Let $`\{e_i\}_{i0}`$ and $`\{e_i\}_i`$ be the canonical orthonormal bases for $`L_2()`$ and $`L_2()`$ respectively. We denote by the same symbol $`N`$ the operator $`e_kke_k`$, $`k0`$, on $`L_2()`$ and $`e_kke_k`$, $`k`$, on $`L_2()`$. Similarly, denote by the same symbol $`\mathrm{}`$ the operator $`e_ke_{k1}`$, $`k1`$, $`e_00`$ on $`L_2()`$ and the operator $`e_ke_{k1}`$, $`k`$ on $`L_2()`$. Now take $``$ to be the Hilbert space $`L_2()L_2()`$, and define $`\pi `$ to be the following representation of $`𝒜`$ on $``$:

$$\pi (\alpha )=\mathrm{}\sqrt{Iq^{2N}}I,\pi (\beta )=q^N\mathrm{}.$$
(1.3)
Then $`\pi `$ is a faithful representation of $`𝒜`$, so that one can identify $`𝒜`$ with the $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`()`$ generated by $`\pi (\alpha )`$ and $`\pi (\beta )`$. Image of $`\pi `$ contains $`𝒦C(S^1)`$ as an ideal with $`C(S^1)`$ as the quotient algebra, that is we have a useful short exact sequence

$$0𝒦C(S^1)\stackrel{i}{}𝒜\stackrel{\sigma }{}C(S^1)0.$$
(1.4)
We will denote by $`𝒜_f`$ the \*-subalgebra of $`𝒜`$ generated by $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Let

$$\alpha _i\beta ^j\beta ^k:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha ^i\beta ^j\beta ^k\hfill & \text{if }i0\text{,}\hfill \\ (\alpha ^{})^i\beta ^j\beta ^k\hfill & \text{if }i<0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`\{\alpha _i\beta ^j\beta ^k:i,j,k\}`$ is a basis for $`𝒜_f`$. The Haar state $`h`$ on $`𝒜`$ is given by,

$$h:a(1q^2)\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{2i}e_{i0},ae_{i0}.$$

###### Remark 1.1

The representation $`\pi `$ admits a nice interpretation. Let $`M`$ be a compact topological manifold and $`E`$, a Hermitian vector bundle on $`M`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(M,E)`$ be the space of continuous sections. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(M,E)`$ is a finitely generated projective $`C(M)`$ module. Define an inner product on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(M,E)`$ as

$$s_1,s_2:=(s_1(m),s_2(m))_m𝑑\nu (m),$$

where $`\nu `$ is a smooth measure on $`M`$ and $`(,)_m`$ is the inner product on the fibre on $`m`$. Let $`_E`$ be the Hilbert space completion of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(M,E)`$. Then we have a natural representation of $`C(M)`$ in $`(_E)`$. The same program can be carried out in the noncommutative context also. Let $``$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra and $`E`$ a Hilbert $``$-module with its $``$ valued inner product $`,_{}`$. Let $`\tau `$ be a state on $``$. Consider the inner product on $`E`$ given by $`e_1,e_2=\tau (e_1,e_2_{})`$. If we denote by $`_E`$ the Hilbert space completion of $`E`$, then we get a natural representation of $``$ in $`(_E)`$. Now in the context of $`SU_q(2)`$, let $`p=|e_0e_0|I𝒜`$. Then it is easy to verify that $`_E=l^2()l^2()`$ for $`E=𝒜p`$ with its natural left Hilbert $`𝒜`$-module structure. Moreover, the associated representation is nothing but the representation of $`𝒜`$ described above. Also, viewed this way, one can think of the representation of $`𝒜`$ on $`L_2(h)`$ given in  as being a countable direct sum of representations each of which look like $`\pi `$ (just think of $`𝒜`$ as $`𝒜p_i`$ where $`p_i=|e_ie_i|I`$).

## 2 $`S^1\times S^1`$-equivariant spectral triples

The group $`G=S^1\times S^1`$ has the following action on $`𝒜`$:

$$\tau _{z,w}:\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha z\alpha \hfill & \\ \beta w\beta \hfill & \end{array}$$
(2.1)
Let $`U`$ be the following representation of $`G`$ on $``$: $`U_{z,w}=z^Nw^N`$. Then for any $`a𝒜`$, one has $`\pi (\tau _{z,w}(a))=U_{z,w}^{}\pi (a)U_{z,w}`$, i.e. the action $`\tau `$ is implemented through this representation $`U`$ of $`G`$. A self-adjoint operator with discrete spectrum equivariant under this G-action must be of the form

$$D:e_{ij}d_{ij}e_{ij}.$$
(2.2)
It is easy to see that if $`D`$ is such an operator, then $`[D,\alpha ]`$ and $`[D,\beta ]`$ are given by

$`[D,\alpha ]e_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(d_{i1,j}d_{ij})\sqrt{1q^{2i}}e_{i1,j},`$ (2.3)
$`[D,\beta ]e_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(d_{i,j1}d_{ij})q^ie_{i,j1}.`$ (2.4)
Employing arguments very similar to those used in the proofs of propositions 3.1 and 3.2 in , we now get the following results.

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`D`$ be an operator of the form $`e_{ij}d_{ij}e_{ij}`$. Then $`[D,a]`$ is bounded for all $`a𝒜_f`$ if and only if $`d_{ij}`$’s satisfy the following two conditions:

$`|d_{i1,j}d_{ij}|`$ $`=`$ $`O(1),`$ (2.5)
$`|d_{i,j1}d_{ij}|`$ $`=`$ $`O(i+1).`$ (2.6)
###### Corollary 2.2

Let $`(𝒜_f,,D)`$ be a spectral triple equivariant under the action of $`S^1\times S^1`$. Then $`D`$ can not be $`p`$-summable if $`p<2`$.

Proof: This is a consequence of the following growth restriction on the $`d_{ij}`$’s:

$$d_{ij}=O(i+|j|+1),$$
(2.7)
which follows from the last proposition.  $`\mathrm{}`$

That there indeed exists a spectral triple that is 2-summable is easy to see, by just taking $`D`$ to be the operator

$$D=NS+IN,$$
(2.8)
where $`S=_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i0}{j0}}|e_{ij}e_{ij}|_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i0}{j<0}}|e_{ij}e_{ij}|`$.

###### Remark 2.3

The obstruction element given by Voiculescu () turns out to be zero for the ideals $`^{(p,\mathrm{})}`$ where $`p<2`$ (note that by proposition 1.7, , it is enough to look at positive finite-rank contractions from the commutant $`U(G)^{}`$ in order to calculate this obstruction). Though one can not conclude anything definite from this, it is possible that by dropping the condition of $`S^1\times S^1`$-equivariance, Dirac operators of lower summability might be achievable.

###### Proposition 2.4

Let $`D`$ be as in the previous proposition. Assume that $`D`$ has compact resolvent. Then up to a compact perturbation, we have

For each jZ, all the dij’s are of the same sign,

there is a big enough integer M such that

all the dij’s for jM are of the same sign,

all the dij’s for j-M are of the same sign.

}\left.\begin{minipage}{350.0pt}
\begin{enumerate}
\par\enumerate@item@For each $j\in\mathbb{Z}$, all the $d_{ij}$'s are of the same sign,
\par\enumerate@item@there is a big enough integer $M$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\par\enumerate@item@all the $d_{ij}$'s for $j\geq M$ are of the same sign,
\par\enumerate@item@all the $d_{ij}$'s for $j\leq-M$ are of the same sign.
\par\end{enumerate}
\par\end{enumerate}
\end{minipage}\right\} (2.9)
Proof: Again, the proof is very similar to the proof of proposition 3.2 in , and hence is omitted.  $`\mathrm{}`$

This proposition says in particular that if $`(𝒜,,D)`$ is a $`G`$-equivariant Fredholm module, then upto a compact perturbation, $`P=\frac{I+\text{sign }D}{2}`$ must be one of the following, where $`E`$ is some finite subset of $`\{M+1,M+2,\mathrm{},M1\}`$:

$`P_1={\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i0}{jM}}{}}|e_{ij}e_{ij}|+{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i0}{jE}}{}}|e_{ij}e_{ij}|,`$ $`P_2={\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i0}{jM}}{}}|e_{ij}e_{ij}|+{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i0}{jE}}{}}|e_{ij}e_{ij}|,`$
$`P_3={\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i0}{jE}}{}}|e_{ij}e_{ij}|,`$ $`P_4={\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i0}{jE^c}}{}}|e_{ij}e_{ij}|.`$
We will prove below that the $`D`$ given by (2.8) is in some sense the unique nontrivial Dirac operator for the representation $`\pi `$ of $`𝒜`$.

###### Theorem 2.5

Let $`D^{}`$ be an $`G`$-equivariant Dirac operator. Then the Kasparov module associated with $`D^{}`$ is either trivial or is same as the one associated with $`D`$ or $`D`$.

Proof: Let $`u=\chi _{\{0\}}(\beta ^{}\beta )(\beta I)+I`$. First, observe that $`[u],(𝒜,,D)=\text{index}SuS=1`$. Since the $`K`$-groups for $`SU_q(2)`$ are free abelain, by the results of Rosenberg & Schochet (), it is now enough to show that $`[u],(𝒜,,D^{})`$ is either 0 or $`\pm 1`$ if $`P^{}:=\frac{I+\text{sign }D^{}}{2}`$ is one of the $`P_i`$’s above. Since $`[u],(𝒜,,D^{})=\text{index}P^{}uP^{}`$, direct calculation now tells us that if $`P^{}`$ is $`P_3`$ or $`P_4`$, the above pairing would be zero; it would be $`1`$ if $`P^{}=P_1`$, and it is $`1`$ and if $`P^{}=P_2`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$
The canonical unitary $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha \hfill & \hfill q\beta ^{}\\ \beta \hfill & \hfill \alpha ^{}\end{array}\right)`$ that comes in the definition of $`SU_q(2)`$ has non-trivial $`K`$-theory class (see the remark following theorem 5, ). One can verify that by computing its pairing with $`DI`$ (acting on $`^2`$).

The following proposition can be derived as a corollary to proposition 4.3, . But the proof presented there was just by computing pairings between appropriate elements and does not give an insight as to why it is true. We give a different proof here that sheds light on this.

###### Proposition 2.6

Given any $`mK^1(SU_q(2))=`$, there exists a Kasparov module $`(L_2(h),F)`$ which induces this element.

Proof: Using remark 1.1, one could look at $`L_2(h)`$ as $`𝒜p_i`$. Representation of $`𝒜`$ by left multiplications in each piece looks like $`\pi `$. Now given $`m`$ in $``$, one has to pick $`m`$ copies of $`\pi `$, and define $`F`$ to be $`(\text{sign}m)S`$ on each of these pieces and $`I`$ on others. Then $`(L_2(h),F)`$ would be the required module.  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Connes-de Rham complex

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(𝒜_f)=_n\mathrm{\Omega }^n(𝒜_f)`$ be the universal graded differential algebra over $`𝒜_f`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n(𝒜_f)=\text{span}\{a_0(\delta a_1)\mathrm{}(\delta a_n):a_i𝒜_f,\delta (ab)=a(\delta b)+(\delta a)b\}`$. The universal differential algebra is not very interesting from the cohomological point of view. Interesting cohomologies are obtained from the representations of the algebra. For the spectral triple $`(𝒜_f,,D)`$, one has the standard Connes-de Rham complex of noncommutative exterior forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D^{}(𝒜_f)`$, given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_D^{}(𝒜):=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(𝒜)/(𝔎+\delta 𝔎)\pi (\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(𝒜))/\pi (\delta 𝔎).$$

where $`𝔎=_{p0}𝔎_p`$ is the two sided ideal of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(𝒜)`$ given by $`𝔎_p=\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^p(𝒜):\pi (\omega )=0\}`$. But often, the explicit computation of this complex is rather difficult. What we will do is the following. We will compute the complex obtained from the representation $`\theta \pi :\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(𝒜)𝒬()`$ where $`\theta :()𝒬()=()/𝒦()`$ is the projection onto the Calkin algebra. More specifically, let $`\stackrel{~}{d}:𝒜_f()`$ be given by $`\stackrel{~}{d}a=[D,\pi (a)]`$. Define $`\pi _n:\mathrm{\Omega }^n(𝒜_f)()`$ by $`\pi _n(a_0(\delta a_1)\mathrm{}(\delta a_n))=\pi (a_0)(\stackrel{~}{d}a_1)\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{d}a_n)`$. Define $`d=\theta \stackrel{~}{d}`$, $`\psi _n=\theta \pi _n`$, and $`\psi :=\psi _n:\mathrm{\Omega }^n𝒬()`$. Let $`J_n=\mathrm{ker}\psi _n`$. Define $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d^n(𝒜_f)=\mathrm{\Omega }^n(𝒜_f)/(J_n+\delta J_{n1})`$.

Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d^n(𝒜_f)=\psi (\mathrm{\Omega }^n(𝒜_f))/\psi (\delta J_n)`$. We will compute these cohomologies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d^n(𝒜_f)`$. Before entering the computations, it should be stressed here that by computing these rather than the standard complex, we do not lose much. Because, first, since for a compact operator $`K`$ one has $`\text{Tr}_\omega (K|D|^2)=0`$, proposition 5, page 550,  concerning the Yang-Mills functional holds in our present case. Second, in the context of the canonical spectral triple associated with a compact Riemannian spin manifold this prescription also gives back the exterior complex.

First, we need the following lemma which will be very useful for the computations.

###### Lemma 3.1

Assume $`a,b𝒜_f`$ and $`c𝒦()`$. If $`a(IS)+b=c`$, then $`a=b=0`$.

Proof: For a functional $`\rho `$ on $`(L_2())`$, and $`T()`$, denote by $`a_\rho `$ the operator $`(\rho \text{id})T`$. Now observe that for any $`a𝒜_f`$ and any functional $`\rho `$,

$$a_\rho \mathrm{}=\mathrm{}a_\rho .$$
(3.1)
Write $`P=\frac{1}{2}(I+S)`$. It is easy to see that the given condition implies that $`(b_\rho a_\rho )+2a_\rho P=c_\rho `$, which in turn implies that

$`(b_\rho a_\rho )e_i`$ $`=`$ $`c_\rho e_ii<0,`$ (3.2)
$`(b_\rho +a_\rho )e_i`$ $`=`$ $`c_\rho e_ii0.`$ (3.3)
Now from (3.1) and (3.2), it follows that for any $`i,j`$ and $`j<0`$,

$`(b_\rho a_\rho )e_i`$ $`=`$ $`(b_\rho a_\rho )\mathrm{}^{ji}e_j`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^{ji}(b_\rho a_\rho )e_j`$
$`=`$ $`(b_\rho a_\rho )e_j`$
$`=`$ $`c_\rho e_j.`$
Since $`c`$ is compact, $`lim_j\mathrm{}c_\rho e_j=0`$. Hence $`(b_\rho a_\rho )e_i=0`$ for all $`i`$. In other words, $`(b_\rho a_\rho )=0`$. Since this is true for any $`\rho `$, we get $`a=b`$. Using this equality, together with equations (3.1) and (3.3), a similar reasoning yields $`a=0`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`_\beta `$ denote the ideal in $`𝒜_f`$ generated by $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$. Then for $`n1`$, we have

$$\psi (\mathrm{\Omega }^n(𝒜_f))=(IS)^n𝒜_f+(IS)^{n+1}_\beta .$$
(3.4)
Proof: Let us first prove the equality for $`n=1`$. Let $`Z_k=q^{N+k}(N+k)`$, $`B_{jk}=_{i=jk+1}^j|e_{i1}e_i|`$, and

$$C_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{i=0}^{j1}|e_ie_{i1}|\hfill & \text{if }j1\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }j=0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

It is easy to check that

$`[D,\alpha ]`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (IS),`$
$`[D,\beta ]`$ $`=`$ $`q^NN[S,\mathrm{}^{}]+\beta .`$ (3.5)
It follows from these that

$`[D,\alpha _i\beta ^j\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}]`$ $`=`$ $`i(IS)\alpha _i\beta ^j\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}+(jk)\alpha _i\beta ^j\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}+2(Z_iC_j)\alpha _i\beta ^{j1}\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}`$ (3.6)
$`2(Z_iB_{jk})\alpha _i\beta ^j\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k1}.`$
Hence $`d(\alpha _i\beta ^j\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k})=i(IS)\alpha _i\beta ^j\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}+(jk)\alpha _i\beta ^j\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}`$. Thus for any $`a𝒜_f`$,

$$da=(IS)b+c,\text{ where }b𝒜_f,c_\beta .$$
(3.7)
Note that for any $`a^{}𝒜_f`$, $`\psi (a^{})(IS)=(IS)\psi (a^{})`$ in $`𝒬()`$. Hence $`\psi (a^{}(\delta a))`$ is again of the form $`(IS)b+c`$, where $`b𝒜_f`$, $`c_\beta `$, i.e. is a member of $`(IS)𝒜_f+_\beta `$. Thus $`\psi (\mathrm{\Omega }^1(𝒜_f))(IS)𝒜_f+_\beta `$. For the reverse inclusion, observe that $`(IS)=(1q^2)^1((d\alpha )\alpha ^{}+q^2(d\alpha ^{})\alpha )`$, $`\beta =d\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}=d\beta ^{}`$.

The inductive step follows easily from (3.7).  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.3

$`J_0=\{0\}`$, and for $`n1`$, we have

$$\psi (\delta J_n)=(IS)^{n+1}𝒜_f+(IS)^{n+2}_\beta .$$
(3.8)
Proof: By lemma 3.1, $`\psi :𝒜_f𝒬()`$ is faithful. Hence it follows that $`J_0=\{0\}`$.

We will prove here (3.8) by induction. From lemma 3.2, we have $`\psi (\delta J_1)\psi (\mathrm{\Omega }^2(𝒜_f))=𝒜_f+(IS)_\beta `$. Let us show that $`I`$, $`(IS)\beta `$ and $`(IS)\beta ^{}`$ are all members of $`\psi (\delta J_1)`$.

Choose $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^1(𝒜_f)`$ such that $`\psi (\omega )=(IS)`$. Let $`\omega _k=k\alpha _k\omega \delta (\alpha _k),k=\pm 1`$. Then it follows from (2.3) that $`\psi (\omega _k)=k\alpha _k(IS)k\alpha _k(IS)=0`$, so that $`\omega _kJ_1`$. $`\psi (\delta \omega _k)=\psi (k(\delta \alpha _k)\omega )=k^2\alpha _k=\alpha _k\psi (\delta J_1)`$, i.e. both $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ are in $`\psi (\delta J_1)`$. It follows from this that $`I\psi (\delta J_1)`$.

Next we show that $`(IS)\beta \psi (\delta J_1)`$. Take $`\omega =\frac{1}{2}(\alpha (\delta \beta )\delta (\alpha \beta )+q\beta (\delta \alpha ))`$. Then $`\psi (\omega )=0`$ and $`\psi (\delta \omega )=(IS)\alpha \beta `$. So $`(IS)\alpha \beta \psi (\delta J_1)`$. Similarly taking $`\omega =\frac{1}{2}(\alpha ^{}(\delta \beta )\delta (\alpha ^{}\beta )+q^1\beta (\delta \alpha ^{}))`$, it follows that $`(IS)\alpha ^{}\beta \psi (\delta J_1)`$. These two together imply $`(IS)\beta \psi (\delta J_1)`$.

A similar argument shows that $`(IS)\beta ^{}`$ is also in $`\psi (\delta J_1)`$. Thus $`𝒜_f+(IS)_\beta =\psi (\delta J_1`$).

For the inductive step, notice that $`\psi (\delta J_n)\psi (\mathrm{\Omega }^{n+1}(𝒜_f))=(IS)^{n+1}𝒜_f+(IS)^{n+2}_\beta `$. We will show that the following are all elements of $`\psi (\delta J_n)`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(IS)^{n+1}\alpha ,\hfill & (IS)^{n+2}\alpha \beta ,\hfill & (IS)^{n+2}\alpha \beta ^{},\hfill \\ (IS)^{n+1}\alpha ^{},\hfill & (IS)^{n+2}\alpha ^{}\beta ,\hfill & (IS)^{n+2}\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

From the right $`𝒜_f`$-module structure of $`\psi (\delta J_n)`$, it will then follow that $`(IS)^{n+1}`$, $`(IS)^{n+2}\beta `$ and $`(IS)^{n+2}\beta ^{}`$ are in $`\psi (\delta J_n)`$, giving us the other inclusion.

Choose $`\omega J_{n1}`$ such that $`\psi (\delta \omega )=(IS)^n`$. Take $`\omega _k=k\omega (\delta \alpha _k)`$, $`k=\pm 1`$. Then $`\omega _kJ_n`$ and $`\psi (\delta \omega _k)=(IS)^{n+1}\alpha _k`$. Similarly choosing $`\omega `$ such that $`\psi (\delta \omega )=(IS)^{n+1}\beta `$ and $`\omega _k`$ as before, we get $`\omega _kJ_n`$ and $`\psi (\delta \omega _k)=q^k(IS)^{n+2}\alpha \beta `$. Finally, take $`\omega `$ such that $`\psi (\delta \omega )=(IS)^{n+1}\beta ^{}`$ and $`\omega _k`$ as before to show that $`(IS)^{n+2}\alpha _k\beta ^{}\psi (\delta J_n)`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 3.4

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_d^n(𝒜_f)=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒜_f_\beta \hfill & \text{if }n=1\text{,}\hfill \\ \{0\}\hfill & \text{if }n2\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof: Proof follows from lemmas 3.2 and 3.3.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.5

The differential $`d:𝒜_f\mathrm{\Omega }_d^1(𝒜_f)=𝒜_f_\beta `$ is given by

$$d(\alpha _i\beta ^j\beta ^k)=i\alpha _i\beta ^j\beta ^k(jk)\alpha _i\beta ^j\beta ^k.$$

## 4 $`L^2`$-complex of Frohlich et. al.

In this section we will compute the complex of square integrable forms for the spectral triple $`(𝒜_f,,D)`$. For that we begin with similar computations for the spectral triple $`([z,z^1],_0=L_2(),D_0=N)`$ associated with the algebra $`[z,z^1]`$. Here we consider the embedding $`\pi _0:[z,z^1]()`$ that maps $`z`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$.

###### Lemma 4.1

(i) $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{D_0}^n([z,z^1])=0,\text{for }n2,`$
(ii) $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{D_0}^1([z,z^1])=[z,z^1].`$

Proof: (i) Let $`\omega =\alpha _{n_0,\mathrm{},n_k}z^{n_0}\delta z^{n_1}\mathrm{}\delta z^{n_k}\mathrm{\Omega }^k([z,z^1])`$, where the sum is a finite one and $`\delta `$ is the universal differential. Then it is easily verified that

$$(\omega ,\omega )_{D_0}=(n_1\mathrm{}n_k\alpha _{n_0,\mathrm{},n_k}z^{_0^kn_j})^{}(n_1\mathrm{}n_k\alpha _{n_0,\mathrm{},n_k}z^{_0^kn_j})𝑑z,$$

where $`dz`$ is the Lebesgue measure on the circle. Therefore,

$`𝔎_k([z,z^1])`$ $`:=`$ $`\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^k([z,z^1]):(\omega ,\omega )_{D_0}=0\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \alpha _{n_0,\mathrm{},n_k}z^{n_0}\delta z^{n_1}\mathrm{}\delta z^{n_k}}:{\displaystyle \underset{n_0+\mathrm{}+n_k=r}{}}n_1\mathrm{}n_k\alpha _{n_0,\mathrm{},n_k}=0,r\}.`$
Consequently we have,

$`z^{n_0}\delta z^{n_1}\mathrm{}\delta z^{n_k}n_1\mathrm{}n_kz^{_0^kn_ik}\delta z\mathrm{}\delta z`$ $``$ $`𝔎_k([z,z^1]),`$ (4.9)
$`\delta z^r\delta z\mathrm{}\delta zrz^r\delta z\mathrm{}\delta z`$ $``$ $`𝔎_k([z,z^1]),`$ (4.10)
$`z^r\delta z\mathrm{}\delta z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r+1}}\delta z^{r+1}\delta z\mathrm{}\delta z`$ $``$ $`𝔎_{k1}([z,z^1]).`$ (4.11)
From (4.11) we get $`\delta z^r\delta z\mathrm{}\delta z\delta 𝔎_{k1}([z,z^1])`$. Combining this with (4.9) and (4.10) we get,

$$z^{n_0}\delta z^{n_1}\mathrm{}\delta z^{n_k}𝔎_k([z,z^1])+\delta 𝔎_{k1}([z,z^1])\text{ for large }n_0.$$

Since $`𝔎_k([z,z^1])+\delta 𝔎_{k1}([z,z^1])`$ is a bimodule we have

$$z^{n_0}\delta z^{n_1}\mathrm{}\delta z^{n_k}𝔎_k([z,z^1])+\delta 𝔎_{k1}([z,z^1])n_0,\mathrm{},n_k.$$

This proves (i).
(ii) It suffices to note that

$$z^{n_0}\delta z^{n_1}n_1z^{n_0+n_11}\delta z𝔎_1([z,z^1]).$$

The induced $`d:\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{D_0}^0([z,z^1])[z,z^1]`$ is given by $`d(z^n)=nz^n`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we are in a position to compute the complex of square integrable forms.

###### Theorem 4.2

(i) $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_D^n(𝒜_f)=0`$ for $`n2`$.
(ii) $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_D^n(𝒜_f)=[z,z^1]`$ for $`n=0,1`$ (equality as an $`𝒜_f`$ bimodule), and the differential $`d:𝒜_f\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_D^1(𝒜_f)`$ is given by $`d(\alpha _i\beta ^j\beta ^k)=iz^i`$.

Proof: Note that the homomorphism $`\sigma `$ in (1.4) induces a surjective homomorphism denoted by the same symbol from $`𝒜_f`$ to $`[z,z^1]`$. We have the following short exact sequence

$$0_\beta 𝒜_f\stackrel{\sigma }{}[z,z^1]0,$$

Let $`\sigma _k:\mathrm{\Omega }^k(𝒜_f)\mathrm{\Omega }([z,z^1])`$ be the induced surjective map. One easily verifies that $`(\omega ,\omega )_D=(\sigma _k(\omega ),\sigma _k(\omega ))_{D_0}`$. Therefore,

$$𝔎_k(𝒜_f)=\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^k(𝒜_f):(\omega ,\omega )_D=0\}=\sigma _k^1(𝔎_k([z,z^1])).$$

We have the following commutative diagram

| $`𝔎_0=I_\beta `$ | $``$ | $`𝒜_f`$ | $`\stackrel{\sigma }{}`$ | $`[z,z^1]`$ | $``$ | $`\pi _0([z,z^1])`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | $``$ |  | $``$ |  | $``$ |
| $`𝔎_1(𝒜_f)`$ | $``$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(𝒜_f)`$ | $`\stackrel{\sigma _1}{}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1([z,z^1])`$ | $``$ | $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{D_0}^1([z,z^1])`$ |
|  |  | $``$ |  | $``$ |  | $``$ |
| $`𝔎_2(𝒜_f)`$ | $``$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(𝒜_f)`$ | $`\stackrel{\sigma _2}{}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2([z,z^1])`$ | $``$ | $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{D_0}^2([z,z^1])`$ |
|  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ |  | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ |
| $`𝔎_n(𝒜_f)`$ | $``$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n(𝒜_f)`$ | $`\stackrel{\sigma _n}{}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n([z,z^1])`$ | $``$ | $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{D_0}^n([z,z^1]).`$ |

This along with the previous lemma proves the theorem. We will only illustrate (i).

Let $`\omega _n\mathrm{\Omega }^n(𝒜_f)`$, then by the previous lemma $`\sigma _n(\omega _n)=\omega _{1,n}+\delta \omega _{2,n1}`$ where $`\omega _{1,n}𝔎_n([z,z^1]),\omega _{2,n1}𝔎_{n1}([z,z^1])`$. Let $`\omega _{1,n}^{}=\sigma _n^1(\omega _{1,n}),\omega _{2,n1}^{}=\sigma _{n1}^1(\omega _{2,n1})`$, then $`\sigma _n(\omega _n\omega _{1,n}^{}\delta \omega _{2,n1}^{})=0`$ implying $`\omega _n𝔎_n+\delta 𝔎_{n1}`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Computations for the quantum sphere

In this section we will briefly indicate how to carry out all the earlier constructions for the quantum spheres. We will be sketchy because most of the arguments are very similar to the case of $`SU_q(2)`$. Quantum sphere was introduced by Podleś in . This is the universal C\*-algebra, denoted by $`C(S_{qc}^2)`$, generated by two elements $`A`$ and $`B`$ subject to the following relations:

$`A^{}=A,`$ $`B^{}B=AA^2+cI,`$
$`BA=q^2AB,`$ $`BB^{}=q^2Aq^4+cI.`$
Here the deformation parameters $`q`$ and $`c`$ satisfy $`|q|<1,c>0`$. For later purpose we also note down two irreducible representations whose direct sum is faithful. Let $`_+=l^2(),_{}=_+`$. Define $`\pi _\pm (A),\pi _\pm (B):_\pm _\pm `$ by

$`\pi _\pm (A)(e_n)=\lambda _\pm q^{2n}e_n`$ $`\mathrm{where}`$ $`\lambda _\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pm (c+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})^{1/2},`$
$`\pi _\pm (B)(e_n)=c_\pm (n)^{1/2}e_{n1}`$ $`\mathrm{where}`$ $`c_\pm (n)=\lambda _\pm q^{2n}(\lambda _\pm q^{2n})^2+c.`$
Since $`\pi =\pi _+\pi _{}`$ is a faithful representation, an immediate corollary follows.

###### Theorem 5.1 (Sheu )

*(i)* $`C(S_{qc}^2)C^{}(𝒯)_\sigma C^{}(𝒯):=\{(x,y):x,yC^{}(𝒯),\sigma (x)=\sigma (y)\}`$ where $`C^{}(𝒯)`$ is the Toeplitz algebra and $`\sigma :C^{}(𝒯)C(S^1)`$ is the symbol homomorphism.
*(ii)* We have a short exact sequence

$`0𝒦\stackrel{i}{}C(S_{qc}^2)\stackrel{\alpha }{}C^{}(𝒯)0`$ (5.12)
Proof: (i) An explicit isomorphism is given by $`x(\pi _+(x),\pi _{}(x))`$.
(ii) Define $`\alpha ((x,y))=x`$ then $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha =𝒦`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 5.2

*(i)* $`K_0(C(S_{qc}^2))=K^0(C(S_{qc}^2))=.`$
*(ii)* $`K_1(C(S_{qc}^2))=K^1(C(S_{qc}^2))=0.`$

Proof: The six term exact sequence associated with (5.12) along with the KK-equivalence of $`𝒦`$ and $`C^{}(𝒯)`$ with $``$ proves the result.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 5.3

Let $`𝒜_{fin}`$ be the \*-subalgebra of $`C(S_{qc}^2)`$ generated by $`A`$ and $`B`$. Then

$$\left(𝒜_{fin},=_+_{},D=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0N}{N\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}}\right),\gamma =\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)\right)$$

is an even spectral triple.

Proof: We only have to show that $`[D,a]`$ is bounded for $`a𝒜_{fin}`$. For that it is enough to note that
(i) $`N\pi _\pm (A),\pi _\pm (A)N`$ are bounded,
(ii) $`n(c_\pm (n)^{1/2}\sqrt{c})`$ is bounded as $`n`$ becomes large,
(iii) $`[N,l]=l`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 5.4

This spectral triple has nontrivial Chern character. This can be seen as follows: let $`P_0=i(|e_0e_0|)C(S_{qc}^2)`$, then applying proposition 4, page 296, ,we get the index pairing $`[P_0],[(𝒜_{fin},,D,\gamma )]=1`$, implying nontriviality of the spectral triple.

Now we will briefly indicate the computations of the complex $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_d^{}(𝒜_{fin}),d)`$ introduced at the beginning of section 3.

###### Theorem 5.5

*(i)* $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d^n(𝒜_{fin})=0`$ for $`n2`$.
*(ii)* $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d^1(𝒜_{fin})=[z,z^1]`$, here also equality is as an $`𝒜_{fin}`$ bimodule.

Proof: Let $`\pi `$ be the associated representation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(𝒜_{fin})`$ in $`()`$. Then straightforward verification gives (i) $`[D,A]`$ is compact, (ii) $`[D,B]=l\kappa +\text{compact}`$, and (iii) $`[D,B^{}]=l^{}\kappa +\text{compact}`$, where $`\kappa =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$. Therefore, modulo compacts

$`\pi (\mathrm{\Omega }^{2k+1}(𝒜_{fin}))`$ $`=`$ $`C_{fin}^{}(𝒯)\kappa `$
$`\pi (\mathrm{\Omega }^{2k}(𝒜_{fin}))`$ $`=`$ $`C_{fin}^{}(𝒯)I_2,`$
where $`C_{fin}^{}(𝒯)`$ is the \*-algebra generated by $`𝒯`$. Now for (i), note that

$$\omega _n=B\delta B^{}\underset{n2times}{\underset{}{\delta B\mathrm{}\delta B}}+B^{}\delta B\underset{n2times}{\underset{}{\delta B\mathrm{}\delta B}}$$

satisfies (a) $`\pi (\omega _n)`$ is compact and (b)$`\pi (\delta \omega _n)=2I`$ is invertible, hence (i) follows.
For (ii), observe that if $`a𝒜_{fin}`$ and $`\pi (a)`$ is compact then $`Na`$ and $`aN`$ both compact. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d^1(𝒜_{fin})=\pi (\mathrm{\Omega }^1(𝒜_{fin}))=[z,z^1]`$ because modulo compacts $`[z,z^1]`$ is $`C^{}(𝒯)`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Partha Sarathi Chakraborty
Indian Statistical Institute, 203, B. T. Road, Calcutta–700 108, INDIA
email: parthasc\_r@isical.ac.in
Arupkumar Pal
Indian Statistical Institute, 7, SJSS Marg, New Delhi–110 016, INDIA
email: arup@isid.ac.in


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Standard Model (SM) of fundamental particles has been tested with an impressive precision by a large number of experiments. The resulting body of data is consistent with the matter content and gauge interactions of the SM and a Higgs boson $`h^0`$ of mass $`m_{h^0}204\mathrm{GeV}`$ . The four experiments at LEP delivered a lower bound for the SM Higgs boson mass, $`m_{h^0}114\mathrm{GeV}`$ . If a fundamental Higgs boson exists, it would fit very naturally into supersymmetric (SUSY) extensions of the SM, in particular into the Minimal Superymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). The latter requires the existence of two isodoublets of scalar Higgs fields, implying three neutral Higgs bosons, two $`CP`$-even bosons $`h^0`$, $`H^0`$, one $`CP`$-odd $`A^0`$, and two charged Higgs bosons $`H^\pm `$. The lightest Higgs particle $`h^0`$ could exhibit properties similar to those of the SM Higgs boson. Its mass is predicted to be less than $`135\mathrm{GeV}`$ , taking into account radiative corrections. The present experimental bound from LEP are $`m_{h^0}>88.3\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_{A^0}>88.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ at $`95\%`$ CL .

The next step in the search for the Higgs boson will take place at the Tevatron  in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at $`2\mathrm{TeV}`$. The gluon-gluon fusion process is the dominant neutral Higgs production mechanism, but suffers from the overwhelming QCD background of $`b\overline{b}`$ production. The most promising Higgs discovery mechanism for $`m_{h^0}<130\mathrm{GeV}`$ is most likely the Higgsstrahlung $`q\overline{q}WWh^0`$. The $`WW`$ fusion process $`WWh^0`$, i.e. $`p\overline{p}qWW\overline{q}qh^0\overline{q}`$, plays a less important rôle.

At LHC, in $`pp`$ collisions at $`14\mathrm{TeV}`$, the gluon-gluon fusion mechanism provides the dominant contribution to Higgs boson production . The next important Higgs production channel is the vector boson fusion $`VVh^0/H^0`$. In particular, it provides an additional event signature due to the two energetic forward jets. It has been argued that the channels $`WWh^0/H^0\tau \overline{\tau }`$ and $`WW`$ can serve as suitable search channels at LHC, even for a Higgs boson mass of $`m_h120\mathrm{GeV}`$ . Very recently, it has been shown that the $`WW`$ fusion process $`qqqh^0q`$ with $`h^0b\overline{b}`$ may be used to identify and study a light Higgs boson at the LHC due the two rapidity gaps in the final state

The next generation of high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders is expected to operate in the energy range of $`\sqrt{s}=3001000\mathrm{GeV}`$ (JLC, NLC, TESLA) . The possibility of a multi-TeV linear collider with $`\sqrt{s}3\mathrm{TeV}`$ (CLIC) is also under study . At these colliders high-precision analyses of the Higgs boson will be possible. In $`e^+e^{}`$ collision, for energies $`200\mathrm{GeV}`$, the production of a single Higgs boson plus missing energy starts to be dominated by $`WW`$ fusion , that is $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }_e\nu _eWW\overline{\nu }_e\nu _eh^0/H^0`$, whereas the Higgsstrahlung process  $`e^+e^{}Zh^0\overline{\nu }\nu h^0`$ becomes less important. The rates for the $`ZZ`$ fusion are generally one order of magnitude smaller than those of the $`WW`$ channel.

The process $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }_e\nu _eWW\overline{\nu }_e\nu _eh^0/H^0`$ was calculated at tree-level in Refs. . The leading one-loop corrections to the $`WWh^0`$ vertex in the SM were also calculated (see the review article  and the references therein). For this coupling also QCD corrections were included, the $`𝒪(a_sG_Fm_t^2)`$ corrections in Ref.  and the $`𝒪(a_s^2G_Fm_t^2)`$ ones in Ref. .

In this paper, we have calculated the one-loop corrections to the $`WWh^0/H^0`$ vertex in the MSSM due to fermion/sfermion loops. We have also included the corresponding wave-function corrections to the $`W`$ and Higgs bosons. They are supposed to be the dominant corrections due to the Yukawa couplings involved. We have applied the corrections to the single Higgs boson production in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation in the energy range $`\sqrt{s}=0.53\mathrm{TeV}`$, i.e. to $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }_e\nu _eWW\overline{\nu }_e\nu _eh^0/H^0`$. We have also included the Higgsstrahlung process $`e^+e^{}Zh^0\overline{\nu }\nu h^0/H^0`$ and the interference between those two mechanisms. Because the Higgsstrahlung process is much smaller in this range, we have neglected its radiative corrections .

In a previous paper  we have already given some results for the light Higgs boson production. This work represents a much more detailed study of single Higgs boson ($`h^0`$ and $`H^0`$) production in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, including radiative corrections. In particular, important kinematical distributions of the rapidity, transverse momentum and the production angle of the Higgs boson are given. Polarization of the incoming $`e^+/e^{}`$ beams is also included. In addition, we consider the “intense coupling regime”, where all Higgs bosons of the MSSM are rather light, and for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ couple maximally to electroweak gauge bosons and strongly to the third generation fermions. The paper contains a brief discussion on the background, although it has not been our intention to perform a Monte Carlo study.

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we give the formulae for the tree-level amplitude, then calculate the one-loop corrections, taking into account fermion/sfermion loops. We express the corrections to the vertex in terms of form factors. In section 3 we are discussing the calculation of the cross section for the Higgs boson production, especially including the one-loop correction. In section 4, we perform a detailed numerical analysis and discuss our results. Finally, in section 5 we present our conclusions. Appendix A exhibits explicitly the expressions for the form factors. Appendix B gives details of the calculation of the cross section and the various distributions.

## 2 Matrix elements and one-loop corrections

We study the process

$$e^+(p_2)+e^{}(p_1)H_k^0(p)+\overline{\nu }(p_4)+\nu (p_3).$$
(1)
$`p`$, $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$, $`p_3`$, $`p_4`$ are the corresponding four momenta and $`H_k^0=\{h^0,H^0\}`$.

The contributing Feynman graphs are shown in Fig. 1. The amplitude of Eq. (1) consists of three parts: $`WW`$ fusion at tree level $`_W^{\mathrm{tree}}`$, its one-loop correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_W`$ and the Higgsstrahlung process $`_Z^{\mathrm{tree}}`$, $`e^+e^{}Zh^0\overline{\nu }\nu H_k^0`$, i.e. $`=_W^{\mathrm{tree}}+_Z^{\mathrm{tree}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_W`$. As already mentioned in the introduction, we have neglected the radiative corrections to $`_Z^{\mathrm{tree}}`$, as this amplitude is much smaller than $`_W^{\mathrm{tree}}`$ in the energy region considered. We will include polarization of the incoming electron and positron beams. $`𝒫_{}`$ and $`𝒫_+`$ denote the polarization of the $`e^{}`$ and $`e^+`$ beams, with the convention $`𝒫_\pm =\{1,0,+1\}`$ for $`\{`$left-polarized, unpolarized, right-polarized$`\}`$ $`e^\pm `$ beams, respectively. (e. g., $`𝒫_{}=0.8`$ means that 80% of the electrons are left-polarized and 20% unpolarized.) The mass of the electron is negligible. Therefore, all vector particles propagate only transversally. We introduce the polarisation factors

$$𝒫_{LR}=(1𝒫_{})(1+𝒫_+),𝒫_{RL}=(1+𝒫_{})(1𝒫_+).$$
(2)
$`𝒫_{LR}(𝒫_{RL})`$ gets maximal in $`e_L^{}e_R^+(e_R^{}e_L^+)`$ collisions.

The squared matrix element in the one-loop approximation is given by

$$||^2=|_W^{\mathrm{tree}}|^2+|_Z^{\mathrm{tree}}|^2+2\mathrm{}\left[_Z^{\mathrm{tree}}(_W^{\mathrm{tree}})^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_W\left((_W^{\mathrm{tree}})^{}+(_Z^{\mathrm{tree}})^{}\right)\right].$$
(3)
The first three terms correspond to the tree level part :

$`|_W^{\mathrm{tree}}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫_{LR}g_{kWW}^2g^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_1^2m_W^2)^2(k_2^2m_W^2)^2}}p_1.p_4p_2.p_3,`$ (4)
$`|_Z^{\mathrm{tree}}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{kZZ}^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{c_W^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q_1^2m_Z^2)^2\left((q_2^2m_Z^2)^2+m_Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2\right)}}\times `$ (5)
$`\left(𝒫_{LR}(C_L^e)^2p_1.p_4p_2.p_3+𝒫_{RL}(C_R^e)^2p_1.p_3p_2.p_4\right),`$
$`2\mathrm{}\left[_Z^{\mathrm{tree}}(_W^{\mathrm{tree}})^{}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`2𝒫_{LR}C_L^eg_{kZZ}g_{kWW}{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{c_W^2}}p_1.p_4p_2.p_3\times `$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{q_2^2m_Z^2}{(q_1^2m_Z^2)\left((q_2^2m_Z^2)^2+m_Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2\right)(k_1^2m_W^2)(k_2^2m_W^2)}},`$
$`k=1,2`$, where 1 (2) stands for $`h^0`$ ($`H^0`$).

The $`WWH_k^0`$ couplings are $`g_{1WW}=gm_W\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )`$, $`g_{2WW}=gm_W\mathrm{cos}(\beta \alpha )`$, $`g_{1ZZ}=\frac{g}{c_W}m_Z\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )`$, $`g_{2ZZ}=\frac{g}{c_W}m_Z\mathrm{cos}(\beta \alpha )`$, $`\beta =\mathrm{arctan}(v_2/v_1)`$, $`\alpha `$ is the $`h^0`$$`H^0`$ mixing angle, $`k_1=p_3p_1`$, $`k_2=p_2p_4`$, $`q_1=p_1+p_2`$, $`q_2=p_3+p_4`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ is the total $`Z`$-boson width, $`C_L^e=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W1/2`$, $`C_R^e=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, with $`\theta _W`$ being the Weinberg angle, and $`c_W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$.

Notice that the $`WW`$ fusion is enhanced if the electron has left and positron right polarization. For instance, with $`𝒫_{}=0.85`$, $`𝒫_+=0.6`$, one has $`𝒫_{LR}=2.96`$ and $`𝒫_{RL}=0.06`$. We are of course interested in the case where the fusion process dominates over the Higgsstrahlung process to get a large Higgs production rate. In this case the polarized cross section is just given by the unpolarized one times $`𝒫_{LR}`$.

Now we turn on discussing the calculation of the one-loop correction due to the fermion and sfermion loops. One expects them to be the most important corrections due to the Yukawa couplings involved. The renormalization of the five-point function simplifies to the renormalization of the $`WWH_k^0`$ vertex with off-shell vector bosons, where the renormalization of the other two vertices in the process (e. g. the $`e^{}\nu _eW^+`$ coupling) is absorbed. The contributions of the first and second families of (s)fermions are numerically negligible due to the smallness of their Yukawa couplings. Therefore, we will consider the contribution arising from the third family of (s)fermions.

At the one-loop level the Lagrangian for the $`WWH_k^0`$ coupling can be written as

$$=\left(g_{kWW}g^{\mu \nu }+N_c\left(\mathrm{\Delta }g_{kWW}\right)^{\mu \nu }\right)H_k^0W_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{}.$$
(7)
The colour factor $`N_c`$ is 3 for (s)quarks and 1 for (s)leptons. Actually, for the calculation of the one-loop corrected $`WWH_k^0`$ vertex one has to compute the vertex and the wave-function corrections due to the graphs of Fig. 2, as well as the coupling correction $`\delta g_{kWW}^{(c)}`$,

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }g_{kWW}\right)^{\mu \nu }=\left(\delta g_{kWW}^{(v)}\right)^{\mu \nu }+\left(\delta g_{kWW}^{(w)}+\delta g_{kWW}^{(c)}\right)g^{\mu \nu }.$$
(8)
The vertex correction can be expressed in terms of all possible form factors,

$$\left(\delta g_{kWW}^{(v)}\right)^{\mu \nu }=F^{00}g^{\mu \nu }+F^{11}k_1^\mu k_1^\nu +F^{22}k_2^\mu k_2^\nu +F^{12}k_1^\mu k_2^\nu +F^{21}k_2^\mu k_1^\nu +iF^ϵϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \delta }k_{1\rho }k_{2\delta },$$
(9)
$`k_{1,2}`$ denote the four-momenta of the off-shell $`W`$-bosons. At tree-level only the structure with $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is present, and therefore all form factors but $`F^{00}`$ have to be ultra violet (UV) finite without being renormalized.

The wave-function correction is

$$\delta g_{kWW}^{(w)}=g_{kWW}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\delta Z_H)_{kk}+\delta Z_W\right)+\frac{1}{2}g_{lWW}(\delta Z_H)_{lk},$$
(10)
$`lk`$, and $`\delta Z_H`$ and $`\delta Z_W`$ are the symmetrized Higgs boson and the $`W`$-boson wave-function corrections calculated from the graphs (g)–(i) and (d)–(f) of the Fig. 2, respectively.

In the case of the off-shell $`W`$-bosons coupling to $`e\nu _e`$, $`\delta Z_W`$ has the form

$$\delta Z_W=\frac{\delta m_W^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{WW}^T(k_1^2)}{k_1^2m_W^2}+\frac{\delta m_W^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{WW}^T(k_2^2)}{k_2^2m_W^2}+2\frac{\delta g}{g}.$$
(11)
The coupling correction is

$$\delta g_{kWW}^{(c)}=\left(\frac{\delta g}{g}+\frac{\delta m_W}{m_W}\right)g_{kWW}(1)^k\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }{2}\frac{\delta \mathrm{tan}\beta }{\mathrm{tan}\beta }g_{lWW},$$
(12)
$`lk`$. The expressions on the right-hand sides of the Eqs. (10)–(12) can be found in Ref. . Especially, we fixed the counter term $`\delta \mathrm{tan}\beta `$ by the on-shell condition $`\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{AZ}(m_A^2)=0`$, where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{AZ}(m_A^2)`$ is the renormalized self-energy for the mixing of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson $`A^0`$ and $`Z`$-boson. By adding the vertex correction, Eq. (9), the wave-function, Eq. (10), and coupling correction, Eq. (12), we get the renormalized and therefore UV finite one-loop correction

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }g_{kWW}\right)^{\mu \nu }=\widehat{F}^{00}g^{\mu \nu }+F^{11}k_1^\mu k_1^\nu +F^{22}k_2^\mu k_2^\nu +F^{12}k_1^\mu k_2^\nu +F^{21}k_2^\mu k_1^\nu +iF^ϵϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \delta }k_{1\rho }k_{2\delta },$$
(13)
which has exactly the same form as Eq. (9) but the form factor $`F^{00}`$ is substituted by the renormalized and hence UV finite one,

$$\widehat{F}^{00}=F^{00}+\delta g_{kWW}^{(w)}+\delta g_{kWW}^{(c)}.$$
(14)
Having calculated the form factors of Eq. (13), one can proceed to the calculation of the one-loop corrected cross section. The remaining parts of Eq. (3) due to the one-loop corrections are

$`2\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_W\left(_W^{\mathrm{tree}}\right)^{}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫_{LR}g_{kWW}g^4\left(2\widehat{F}^{00}p_1p_4p_2p_3+F^{21}S\right)`$ (15)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_i^2m_W^2)^2}},`$
$`2\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_W\left(_Z^{\mathrm{tree}}\right)^{}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫_{LR}C_L^eg_{kZZ}{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{c_W^2}}\left(2\widehat{F}^{00}p_1p_4p_2p_3+F^{21}S\right)`$ (16)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{q_2^2m_Z^2}{(q_1^2m_Z^2)\left((q_2^2m_Z^2)^2+m_Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2\right)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_i^2m_W^2}},`$
where

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`(p_1p_4+p_2p_3)\left(p_1p_2p_3p_4+p_1p_4p_2p_3p_1p_3p_2p_4\right)`$ (17)
$``$ $`2(p_1p_2+p_3p_4)p_1p_4p_2p_3.`$
As $`k_{1,2}`$ are spacelike, $`F^{00}`$ and $`F^{21}`$ have no absorptive parts and are therefore real. The term with $`F^ϵ`$ does not contribute to the cross section. The explicit forms of $`F^{00}`$ and $`F^{21}`$ are given in Appendix A.

## 3 Calculation of the cross section

In order to calculate the cross section, including the radiative corrections from fermion and sfermion loops, one has to choose an appropriate reference frame. A detailed discussion on this is given in Appendix B. The momenta of the particles participating in the process are defined in Eq. (1).

The calculation of the total cross section for the Higgs boson production $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }\nu H_k^0`$ is performed in two steps. First, we calculate the differential cross section

$$E_p\frac{d^3\sigma }{d^3p}=\frac{||^2}{16s(2\pi )^5}\delta ^4(p_1+p_2p_3p_4p)\frac{d^3p_3}{E_3}\frac{d^3p_4}{E_4},$$
(18)
where $`E_p`$ is the energy of the produced Higgs boson. For this calculation it is convenient to work in the rest frame of the two final fermions, where one has $`\stackrel{}{p}_3+\stackrel{}{p}_4=0`$, see Fig. 3. In this frame the differential cross section can be evaluated using

$$E_p\frac{d^3\sigma }{d^3p}=_1^1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi \frac{||^2}{s(4\pi )^5},$$
(19)
by integrating the total amplitude $`||^2`$ over the angles $`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$, as they are defined in Fig. 3. For the tree-level case, it has been shown  that these integrations can be performed analytically. For example, the results for the fusion process, the Higgsstrahlung, and their interference term from Eqs. (4)–(6) can be found in Eqs. (5)–(8) of Ref. . One major complication of the inclusion of the one-loop corrections of Eqs. (15) and (16) is that it is not possible anymore to calculate these integrals analytically. This is due to the fact that the form factors $`\widehat{F}^{00}`$ and $`F^{21}`$ are functions of the momentum transfer $`k_{1,2}^2`$. Therefore, for the one-loop corrected cross section we are bound to use numerical methods for this task.

The second step consists of the integration of the differential cross section in order to get the total for the Higgs boson production. To do this, we are working in the rest frame of the initial fermions, where $`\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2=0`$, see Fig. 4. In this reference frame we obtain the total cross section

$$\sigma =2\pi _1^1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _p_{m_H}^{E_p^{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑E_p\sqrt{E_p^2m_{H_k^0}^2}\left(E_p\frac{d^3\sigma }{d^3p}\right),$$
(20)
where $`\theta _p`$ denotes the angle of the produced Higgs boson with respect to the beam direction. Alternatively, one can use the rapidity $`y`$ and the transverse momentum $`p_T`$ of the Higgs boson and calculate the cross section as

$$\sigma =_y_{}^{y_+}𝑑y_0^{(p_T^2)^{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑p_T^2\left(\frac{d^2\sigma }{dydp_T^2}\right),$$
(21)
where the integrand and the integration limits are given in Eqs. (45) and (46), respectively. These integrations, even in the tree-level case, are carried out numerically. The advantage of using the $`y`$, $`p_T`$ variables is the faster numerical convergence of the integration routines, due to the strong forward-backward peaking of the differential cross section for large $`\sqrt{s}`$. For the calculation of the one-loop corrected cross section, one has to perform four numerical integrations successively. For this purpose, we use appropriate numerical integration routines found in the NAG library. In addition, we have checked that for the tree-level case our completely numerical calculation agrees with high accuracy with the semi-analytical results of Ref. .

## 4 Discussion and results

In our numerical analysis, we have taken into account the contribution arising from the third family of fermion/sfermion loops. This contribution turns out to be the dominant one, in comparison with the first two families corrections, due to the large values of the Yukawa couplings $`h_t`$ and $`h_b`$. The impact of the running of the electroweak couplings $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$ is not negligible, especially for large $`\sqrt{s}`$ we are discussing here. Therefore it has been taken into account. For the calculation of the SUSY Higgs boson spectrum and the Higgs mixing angle $`\alpha `$, a computer program based on Ref.  has been used. We note that for values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >5`$ and $`m_A`$ large the SUSY $`WWh^0`$ coupling mimics the SM one, while the $`WWH^0`$ is very small. This is due to fact that for these values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we have $`\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )1`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(\beta \alpha )0`$.

In the so-called “intense coupling regime” , where the neutral Higgs bosons are almost degenerate and light, $`m_Hm_hm_A100\mathrm{GeV}`$, there is the possibility that the $`WWh^0`$ coupling is suppressed, while the $`WWH^0`$ one is not suppressed. For this case it is worth to explore the possibility of the heavy Higgs production.

For simplicity, for all plots we have used $`A_t=A_b=A_\tau =A`$, $`\{m_{\stackrel{~}{U}},m_{\stackrel{~}{D}},m_{\stackrel{~}{L}},m_{\stackrel{~}{E}}\}=`$ $`\{\frac{9}{10},\frac{11}{10},1,1\}m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$ and $`M_1=\frac{5}{3}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _WM_20.5M_2`$. The choice of a common trilinear coupling and the correlation between the soft sfermion and gauginos masses are inspired by unification.

Concerning the polarization, from the Eqs. (4)–(6),(15) and (16), we can see that basically the polarized cross section for the process $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }\nu h^0/H^0`$ is the unpolarized multiplied with the factor $`𝒫_{LR}`$. Although the second term of the Higgsstrahlung contribution in Eq. (5) is multiplied with $`𝒫_{RL}`$, considering that for $`\sqrt{s}>500\mathrm{GeV}`$ the total tree-level cross section is dominated by the $`WW`$ fusion channel, this term is not important for the Higgs production at future linear colliders. Therefore, if one wants to enhance the cross section the appropriate mode would be $`e_L^{}e_R^+`$, where we have $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pol}}𝒫_{LR}\sigma _{\mathrm{unpol}}`$, while $`𝒫_{LR}`$ being as high as 3 to 4.

We will start discussing the light Higgs boson production $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }\nu h^0`$, in the MSSM, and the impact of the fermion/sfermion corrections calculated in section 2. In Fig. 5 (left) we have plotted the total tree-level cross section (dashed line) and the one-loop corrected one (solid line) for $`\sqrt{s}`$ up to $`3\mathrm{TeV}`$. The tree-level cross section includes the contribution from the $`WW`$ fusion channel, the Higgsstrahlung and their interference. The correction stemming from the fermion/sfermion loops is always negative and substantial being of the order of $`10\%`$. Focusing for $`\sqrt{s}`$ up to $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$ (right) in a more detailed figure, the various contributions are presented. The dotted-dashed line represents the contribution from the $`WW`$ channel at tree-level alone, whereas the dotted line includes the Higgsstrahlung contribution as well. The dashed line includes in addition the interference between the $`WW`$ channel and Higgsstrahlung. The size of this interference term is extremely small, hence the difference between the dotted and dashed lines is rather tiny. It can also be seen that for $`\sqrt{s}500\mathrm{GeV}`$ the $`WW`$ fusion contribution dominates the total cross section for the Higgs production. Actually, for $`\sqrt{s}800\mathrm{GeV}`$ the total tree-level cross section is due to $`WW`$ fusion. The solid line represents again the one-loop corrected cross section. In Fig. 5 we have taken: $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, $`\mu =300\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A=100\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=300\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_A=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`M_2=400\mathrm{GeV}`$. Choosing different sets of parameters, the basic characteristics of these plots remain unchanged. Actually, the soft gaugino masses $`M_{1,2}`$ affect only the Higgs boson masses and couplings through radiative corrections.

In Fig. 6 the relative correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _0`$ is presented as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ for two different sets of parameters. The solid line corresponds to the set used in the Fig. 5, whereas for the dashed line we have taken $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, $`\mu =100\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`A=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, keeping the rest of them unchanged. This figure shows that the size of the one-loop correction to the Higgs production cross section is practically constant for $`\sqrt{s}>500\mathrm{GeV}`$ and weighs about $`15\%`$, almost for any choice of the SUSY parameters. This is a consequence of the dominance of the fermion-loop contribution over the one-loop corrections, and therefore the total correction is not very sensitive to the choice of the SUSY parameters. This behaviour of the one-loop correction will be discussed further after presenting the influence of the corrections on the various distributions.

In Fig. 7 we present the distributions $`\frac{d\sigma }{dy}`$, $`\frac{d\sigma }{dp_T}`$ and $`\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _p}`$ as a function of the rapidity $`y`$, the transverse momentum $`p_T`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _p`$, respectively. We have fixed $`\sqrt{s}=1\mathrm{TeV}`$. The dashed lines represent the tree-level case, while the solid lines the one-loop corrected one. The SUSY parameters are as in Fig. 5. Paying attention to the figures of the $`\frac{d\sigma }{dy}`$ and $`\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _p}`$ distributions, we see that the tree-level distributions are completely symmetric. We have checked numerically that the one-loop corresponding distributions are also symmetric up to differences of $`𝒪(10^2)`$ fb. For example, at a collider like TESLA with an integrated luminosity of $`500\mathrm{fb}^1`$ such a small asymmetry yields only few events, making these measurements very difficult. The reason for such tiny asymmetries is the smallness of the form factor $`F^{21}`$, which contributes to the one-loop corrections in Eqs. (15) and (16). The dominant one-loop correction results from the form factor $`\widehat{F}^{00}`$, which having the same structure as the tree-level $`WWh^0`$ coupling, that is a correction to the $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ term in Eq. (7), does not contribute to the asymmetry.

This fact, in conjunction with the behaviour of the correction illustrated in Fig. 6, suggests that a handy approximation of these fermion/sfermion loop corrections might be possible . The major complication in calculating the corrections from Eqs. (15) and (16) is the dependence of the form factors $`\widehat{F}^{00}`$, $`F^{21}`$ on the momentum transfer of the fused $`W`$-bosons $`k_{1,2}^2`$. On the other hand, the dominant contribution from the integration of these terms over the phase-space arises for small values of $`k_{1,2}^2`$. Therefore, the essence of such an approximation will be to keep the dominant Yukawa terms from the form factor $`\widehat{F}^{00}`$ for $`k_{1,2}^20`$, which will be just a factor correction to the tree-level coupling $`WWh^0`$. In the literature there is an effective approximation, where one only corrects the $`WWh^0`$ coupling . Although the sign of this approximation is correct, it does not however account for the whole effect.

As it has been discussed earlier, in the bulk of the SUSY parameter space the $`WWH^0`$ coupling is rather small, resulting in a small production cross section for the heavy $`CP`$-even Higgs boson $`H^0`$. The situation can be reversed in the so-called “intense coupling regime”. There the $`WWH^0`$ coupling can be significant, while the $`WWh^0`$ coupling becomes smaller. For this case we show Fig. 8. In order to approach this case the SUSY parameters have been chosen as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, $`\mu =M_2=350\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A=1000\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=1000\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_A=110\mathrm{GeV}`$. For such a choice $`h^0`$, $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ are almost degenerate and light with masses from $`110\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`120\mathrm{GeV}`$. The meaning of the various curves in the plots here is as the corresponding in the Fig. 5. Comparing Fig. 8 with Fig. 5 we see that the cross section for the $`H^0`$ production is smaller than the $`h^0`$ production. Yet, it is possible to tune the SUSY parameters in such a way to obtain values for the heavy Higgs production as large as for the light one. In any case, it seems that going to the “intense coupling regime” the task of discriminating between the two Higgs bosons becomes not trivial.

Fig. 9 exhibits the percentage of the sfermion loops to the total one-loop correction as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (left) and $`\mu `$ (right), for two different values of $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, respectively, as shown in the figure. In the left (right) figure we have chosen $`A=100\mathrm{GeV}`$ ($`A=400\mathrm{GeV}`$). The rest of the SUSY parameters are: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=300\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_A=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`M_2=400\mathrm{GeV}`$. Here $`\sqrt{s}`$ has been fixed to $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$. The grey area in the right figure is excluded due to the chargino mass bound. We see that the maximum value of order 10% can be achieved for large values of $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. There, due to the significant mixing in the stop and sbottom sector, the contribution of stops and sbottoms in the loops is enhanced. For these values of SUSY parameters the sfermion masses approach their experimental lower bounds. But even there the dominant correction, at least $`90\%`$ of the total correction, is due to the fermion loops.

Finally, let us discuss the background to single Higgs boson production, Eq. (1). To the background several processes contribute. Single $`Z`$-boson production from $`WW`$ fusion has a large cross section ($``$ 200 fb at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV) and a similar topology as the signal process but the invariant mass of the two jets would peak at $`m_Z`$. Tagging of $`b`$ would improve the signal as the branching ratio of $`Zb\overline{b}`$ is only 15%. The angular distribution of the two jets would also be different due to the spin 1 of the $`Z`$ boson. Double $`Z`$-boson production, $`e^+e^{}ZZ`$, where one $`Z`$ decays into $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and the other into two jets ($`\sigma `$ 500 fb at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV) is another background. It can be reduced by cutting out the forward direction and measuring the invariant mass of the two jets. An important background is due to the process $`e^+e^{}e^+W^{}\nu _e`$ through $`\gamma W`$ fusion ($`\sigma `$ 4.5 pb), with a very low $`p_T`$ electron being lost in the beam pipe. Again the invariant mass of the two jets from $`W`$ would give a peak at $`m_W`$, and above all $`b`$-tagging would strongly reduce this background . Another source for the background is due to $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}b\overline{b}`$ (via $`\gamma \gamma `$ fusion), where the $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ are emitted in the very forward direction thereby escaping detection. However, the significance of this background can be substantially reduced by making a cut in $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |`$ of the outgoing $`b\overline{b}`$ pair, to eliminate the part, where the $`b\overline{b}`$ is emitted near the beam direction .

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have calculated the fermion/sfermion loop corrections to single Higgs boson production $`e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }\nu h^0/H^0`$ in the context of the MSSM. They are supposed to be the dominant radiative corrections due to the size of the Yukawa couplings. At the next generation of high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders, where $`\sqrt{s}500\mathrm{GeV}`$ , the $`WW`$ fusion channel dominates the Higgs boson production cross section. We have also included the Higgsstrahlung process and its interference with the $`WW`$ fusion. The one-loop correction to the cross section is negative and of the order of $`10\%`$, and is rather independent of $`\sqrt{s}`$ for $`\sqrt{s}>500\mathrm{GeV}`$. It is dominated by the fermion loops, usually being larger than $`90\%`$ of the total correction. For the case of maximal mixing in the sfermion mass matrices, the contribution of the sfermion loops is enhanced, but nevertheless weighs less than $`10\%`$ of the total one-loop correction. The possibility of having polarized $`e^+/e^{}`$ beams is also explored. The study of the kinimatical distributions of the rapidity and the production angle of the Higgs boson shows that these loop corrections do not alter the symmetry of the tree-level distributions. In the bulk of the parameter space of the MSSM the $`WWH^0`$ coupling is suppressed, making the heavy Higgs boson production very difficult. Yet, going to the “intense coupling regime” there is a possibility of obtaining sizable values for this coupling. We have studied the heavy Higgs boson production, including the one-loop fermion/sfermion corrections, in this case.

Note added in proof
After submitting our paper, it was claimed in the paper by T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, and G. Weiglein, hep-ph/0211204, that there is a discrepancy between their and our results. The difference, however, was resolved in a recent paper by A. Denner et al., hep-ph/0301189. The difference in the size of the radiative corrections is due to the use of a different charge renormalization scheme and different input parameters. With the same input mass parameters we get the same result for the corrected cross section.
We thank A. Denner and T. Hahn et al. for comparing results. Especially, we want to thank A. Denner for correspondence and the strong effort in clarifying the situation.

Acknowledgements
V. C. S. acknowledges support by a Marie Curie Fellowship of the EU programme IHP under contract HPMFCT-2000-00675. The authors acknowledge support from EU under the HPRN-CT-2000-00149 network programme. The work was also supported by the “Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung” of Austria, project No. P13139-PHY.

Appendices

## Appendix A Form factors $`𝑭^{\mathrm{𝟎𝟎}}`$ and $`𝑭^{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}}`$

For convenience we are presenting the formulae for the (s)top–(s)bottom doublet, but actually they are valid for any (s)fermion doublet. The form factors $`F^{00}`$ and $`F^{21}`$ are given by

$`F^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\left(A_{btt}^{00}+A_{tbb}^{00}+A_{3\stackrel{~}{q}}^{00}+A_{2\stackrel{~}{q}}^{00}\right),`$ (22)
$`F^{21}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\left(A_{btt}^{21}+A_{tbb}^{21}+A_{3\stackrel{~}{q}}^{21}\right).`$ (23)
Note that $`A_{2\stackrel{~}{q}}^{21}=0`$. $`A_{btt}^{00}`$, $`A_{btt}^{21}`$, $`A_{tbb}^{00}`$, and $`A_{tbb}^{21}`$ correspond to Fig. 2a, $`A_{3\stackrel{~}{q}}^{00}`$ and $`A_{3\stackrel{~}{q}}^{21}`$ to Fig. 2b, and $`A_{2\stackrel{~}{q}}^{00}`$ to Fig. 2c.

$`A_{btt}^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3m_t^2}{4m_W\mathrm{sin}\beta }}\{\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\mathrm{sin}\alpha \}((2m_t^2+2m_b^2k_1^2k_2^2)C_08C_{00}`$ (24)
$`+B_0(k_1^2,m_t^2,m_b^2)+B_0(k_2^2,m_t^2,m_b^2)+2B_0(m_{H_k^0}^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)),`$
$`A_{btt}^{21}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3m_t^2}{2m_W\mathrm{sin}\beta }}\{\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\mathrm{sin}\alpha \}\left(C_0+C_1+4(C_2+C_{12}+C_{22})\right),`$ (25)
with $`C_{..}=C_{..}(k_2^2,m_{H_k^0}^2,k_1^2,m_b^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)`$, and $`\{\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\mathrm{sin}\alpha \}`$ corresponds to $`k=\{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\}`$.

$`A_{tbb}^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3m_b^2}{4m_W\mathrm{cos}\beta }}\{\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,\mathrm{cos}\alpha \}((2m_t^2+2m_b^2k_1^2k_2^2)C_08C_{00}`$ (26)
$`+B_0(k_1^2,m_t^2,m_b^2)+B_0(k_2^2,m_t^2,m_b^2)+2B_0(m_{H_k^0}^2,m_b^2,m_b^2)),`$
$`A_{tbb}^{21}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3m_b^2}{2m_W\mathrm{cos}\beta }}\{\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,\mathrm{cos}\alpha \}\left(C_0+C_1+4(C_2+C_{12}+C_{22})\right),`$ (27)
with $`C_{..}=C_{..}(k_2^2,m_{H_k^0}^2,k_1^2,m_t^2,m_b^2,m_b^2)`$, and $`\{\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,\mathrm{cos}\alpha \}`$ corresponds to $`k=\{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\}`$.

$$A_{3\stackrel{~}{q}}^{ab}=2g^2\underset{i,j,l=1,2}{}\left(G_{ijk}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}R_{i1}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}R_{j1}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}R_{l1}^{\stackrel{~}{b}}R_{l1}^{\stackrel{~}{b}}C_{ba}^1+G_{ijk}^{\stackrel{~}{b}}R_{i1}^{\stackrel{~}{b}}R_{j1}^{\stackrel{~}{b}}R_{l1}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}R_{l1}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}C_{ba}^2\right),$$
(28)
with the couple of indices $`(ab)`$ = $`(00)`$ or $`(21)`$, $`k=1,2`$ denotes $`h^0`$ and $`H^0`$, $`C_{..}^1=C_{..}(k_2^2,m_{H_k^0}^2,k_1^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_l}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j}^2)`$ and $`C_{..}^2=C_{..}(k_2^2,m_{H_k^0}^2,k_1^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_l}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j}^2)`$. The definition of the rotation matrices $`R^{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ and $`R^{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$, and the coupling matrices $`G_{ijk}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ and $`G_{ijk}^{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$ are given in Ref. .

$$A_{2\stackrel{~}{q}}^{00}=\frac{g^2}{2}\underset{i,j=1,2}{}\left(G_{ijk}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}R_{i1}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}R_{j1}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}B_0(m_{H_k^0}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_i}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j}^2)+G_{ijk}^{\stackrel{~}{b}}R_{i1}^{\stackrel{~}{b}}R_{j1}^{\stackrel{~}{b}}B_0(m_{H_k^0}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j}^2)\right).$$
(29)
## Appendix B Calculation of the cross section

In general the differential cross section for the process of Eq. (1), when the colliding fermions $`f_1`$, $`f_2`$ are massless, is given by

$$d\sigma =\frac{||^2}{4p_1p_2}d\mathrm{\Phi }_3,$$
(30)
where the 3-body phase-space is

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }_3=(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_1+p_2p_3p_4p)\frac{d^3p_3}{(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}E_3}\frac{d^3p_4}{(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}E_4}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}E_p}.$$
(31)
The differential cross section can be cast into the form

$$E_p\frac{d^3\sigma }{d^3p}=\frac{||^2}{16s(2\pi )^5}\delta ^4(p_1+p_2p_3p_4p)\frac{d^3p_3}{E_3}\frac{d^3p_4}{E_4},$$
(32)
where $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2=2p_1p_2`$.

In order to calculate the differential cross section of Eq. (32) we are following the procedure of Ref.  and we choose to work in the rest frame of the two final fermions defined by $`\stackrel{}{p}_3+\stackrel{}{p}_4=0`$, see Fig 3. In this frame $`\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2`$, which means that the vectors $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_2`$ lie in the same plane, the $`(x,z)`$ plane in our case.

In this frame one gets

$`E_p{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma }{d^3p}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{||^2}{16s(2\pi )^5}\delta (E_1+E_22E_3E_p)𝑑E_3d\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi }`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{||^2}{s(4\pi )^5}}.`$
The products $`p_ip_j`$, $`i,j=1,2,3,4`$, which are involved in $`||^2`$, can be expressed in terms of the angles $`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$, $`\chi `$ and the products $`pp_1`$, $`pp_2`$ :

$`p_1p_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}},`$
$`p_1p_3`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}(s2pp_1)(1\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$
$`p_1p_4`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}(s2pp_1)(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$
$`p_2p_3`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}(s2pp_2)(1\mathrm{cos}\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ),`$
$`p_2p_4`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}(s2pp_2)(1+\mathrm{cos}\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ),`$
$`p_3p_4`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(s+m_H^22pp_12pp_2),`$
$`k_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`2p_1p_3,`$
$`k_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`2p_2p_4.`$ (34)
It is important to note that $`\mathrm{cos}\chi `$ can be expressed in terms of Lorentz invariant quantities

$$\mathrm{cos}\chi =1\frac{2s(s+m_H^22pp_12pp_2)}{(s2pp_1)(s2pp_2)}.$$
(35)
$`m_H`$ denotes the mass of the Higgs boson $`h^0/H^0`$.

Using Eqs. (34),(35) and integrating over the angles $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$ in Eq. (33) one obtains the differential cross section $`E_p\frac{d^3\sigma }{d^3p}`$ as a function of the Lorentz invariants: $`\mathrm{cos}\chi `$, $`pp_1`$ and $`pp_2`$. In order to calculate the total cross section we go to the rest frame of the initial fermions. There we have $`\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2=0`$, see Fig. 4, and we have chosen the beam direction as the $`z`$-axis. The three momenta of the final state particles $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}_3`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_4`$ span a plane, and $`\theta _p`$ is the angle between the $`\stackrel{}{p}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. In this reference frame one finds

$`pp_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}(E_p|\stackrel{}{p}|\mathrm{cos}\theta _p),pp_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}(E_p+|\stackrel{}{p}|\mathrm{cos}\theta _p),`$
$`|\stackrel{}{p}|=\sqrt{E_p^2m_H^2}.`$ (36)
The total cross section is given by

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi ^{}{\displaystyle _1^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _p{\displaystyle _0^{|\stackrel{}{p}|^{\mathrm{max}}}}d|\stackrel{}{p}||\stackrel{}{p}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_p}}\left(E_p{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma }{d^3p}}\right)`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle _1^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _p{\displaystyle _{m_H}^{E_p^{\mathrm{max}}}}𝑑E_p|\stackrel{}{p}|\left(E_p{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma }{d^3p}}\right).`$
The maximum value of $`|\stackrel{}{p}|`$

$$|\stackrel{}{p}|^{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{sm_H^2}{2\sqrt{s}}$$
(38)
is for $`\mathrm{cos}\delta =1`$, see Fig. 4, and this gives

$$E_p^{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{s+m_H^2}{2\sqrt{s}}$$
(39)
as integration limit for Eq. (37).

It is more convenient to use in Eq. (37) the rapidity $`y`$ and the transverse momentum $`p_T`$ of the produced Higgs boson, instead of the integration variables $`E_p`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _p`$. The transverse and longitudinal momenta of the Higgs boson are

$$p_T=|\stackrel{}{p}|\mathrm{sin}\theta _p,p_L=|\stackrel{}{p}|\mathrm{cos}\theta _p.$$
(40)
Defining the rapidity as

$$y=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{E_p+p_L}{E_pp_L}\right),$$
(41)
one finds

$`p_L=m_T\mathrm{sinh}y,pp_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}m_Te^y,`$
$`E_p=m_T\mathrm{cosh}y,pp_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}m_Te^y,`$ (42)
where the transverse mass of the Higgs boson is defined as

$$m_T\sqrt{m_H^2+p_T^2}.$$
(43)
Changing the integration variables from $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _p,E_p`$ to $`y,p_T`$, the total cross section of Eq. (37) can be cast into the form

$$\sigma =_y_{}^{y_+}𝑑y_0^{(p_T^2)^{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑p_T^2\left(\frac{d^2\sigma }{dydp_T^2}\right),$$
(44)
where

$$\left(\frac{d^2\sigma }{dydp_T^2}\right)=\pi \left(E_p\frac{d^3\sigma }{d^3p}\right).$$
(45)
For the integration limits we find

$$y_\pm =\pm \mathrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{s}}{m_H},(p_T^2)^{\mathrm{max}}=\left(\frac{s+m_H^2}{2\sqrt{s}\mathrm{cosh}y}\right)^2m_H^2.$$
(46)
One can reverse the order of the integrations and to carry out first the the integration over the rapidity $`y`$. In order to do this, we have to inverse the function $`(p_T^2)^{\mathrm{max}}(y)`$ in Eq. (46). By doing this and by studying the integrations limits in the plane ($`y,p_T^2`$) one gets

$$\sigma =_0^{(\stackrel{~}{p}_T^2)^{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑p_T^2_{\stackrel{~}{y}_{}}^{\stackrel{~}{y}_+}𝑑y\left(\frac{d^2\sigma }{dydp_T^2}\right).$$
(47)
For the new integration limits we find

$$(\stackrel{~}{p}_T^2)^{\mathrm{max}}=\left(\frac{sm_H^2}{2\sqrt{s}}\right)^2,\stackrel{~}{y}_\pm =\pm \mathrm{ln}\left[z+\sqrt{z^21}\right],$$
(48)
where

$$z=\frac{s+m_H^2}{2\sqrt{s(p_T^2+m_H^2)}}.$$
(49)


text:
# CLASS B0445+123: A new two-image gravitational lens system

## 1 Introduction

The Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey (CLASS), conducted in four phases between 1994 and 1999, has mapped a total of 16,503 radio sources with the aim of detecting gravitationally lensed, flat-spectrum, compact objects. The sources for the first two phases were selected from the 87GB (Gregory & Condon 1991) catalogue while those in the later CLASS-3 and 4 samples were chosen from the updated GB6 (Gregory et al. 1996) survey when it became available. Spectral selection was performed by comparing the 5 GHz 87GB (or GB6) flux with that from the 1.4 GHz NVSS catalogue (Condon et al. 1998); sources with a spectral index, $`\alpha `$, of $``$ -0.5 between 1.4 and 5 GHz (where $`S\nu ^\alpha `$) and total flux densities $``$ 30 mJy at 5 GHz were then included in the list of targets for CLASS. The initial selection of the CLASS samples is described in greater detail in Myers et al. (2002) and radio maps and catalogues covering the entire CLASS sample are available at http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/research/gravlens/.

Each object in the survey was first mapped at a resolution of 0.2 arcseconds with the VLA (Very Large Array) at a frequency of 8.4 GHz. The images were then systematically examined for signs of structure. Potential lens candidates are those sources displaying multiple compact components within 15′′ of each other. They were selected from the CLASS sample according to specific criteria; the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of at least two of the components must be $``$ 170 mas when observed with the VLA at 200-mas resolution, the separation of the components must be $``$ 300 mas, all components observed must have similar surface brightnesses, the sum of the 8.4-GHz flux densities must be $``$ 20 mJy, and the flux density ratio between the two brightest components must be $``$ 10:1.

In order to distinguish between physically extended objects (e.g. core-jet systems) and those displaying gravitational lensing effects, sources displaying multiple compact components in the VLA images were mapped at a frequency of 5 GHz and a resolution of 50 mas using MERLIN (Multi-Element Radio Linked Interferometer Network). Sources showing components with significantly different surface brightnesses at this stage of the survey were rejected from the search.

Sources surviving this stage of the selection process were then mapped at a resolution of 2 mas with the VLBA (Very Long Baseline Array). Browne et al. (2002) describes the candidate selection criteria and follow up procedures in greater detail.

In this paper we describe the follow up observations of one of these candidates, CLASS B0445+123, which lead us to the conclusion that it is a two-image gravitational lens system.

## 2 Radio Observations

CLASS B0445+123 was first imaged with the VLA in 1995 during the second phase of CLASS and follow-up observations were carried out with both the VLA, MERLIN and the VLBA. The data were calibrated using AIPS (Astronomical Image Processing System, distributed by the U.S. National Radio Astronomy Observatory) and then mapped and self-calibrated in DIFMAP (Shepherd 1997). A summary of all the observations made of B0445+123 is given in Table 1 and the flux densities of both components for each observation are listed in Table 2.

### 2.1 VLA

B0445+123 was observed with the VLA in its largest, “A” configuration on 03 September 1995. Myers et al. (2002) describe the VLA observations and the processing carried out on the CLASS data in greater detail. The original VLA image (Figure 1, left) shows two distinct components with a separation of 1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$34 and a flux density ratio of 7.3:1. The brighter and fainter components are given the designations A and B respectively, according to the usual convention, and they have a combined flux density at 8.4 GHz of 30.8 mJy. Component A appears slightly extended towards the south-east.

Further observations were made in 1999 at 15 and 8.4 GHz (Figure 2, top left and top right respectively). Deep observations at 8.4 GHz show a clear extension to the south-east of component A, including a weaker component A, and signs of a corresponding elongation (B) of component B to the north-west.

### 2.2 MERLIN

Snapshot observations of B0445+123 were made on 09 March 2000 with MERLIN at a frequency of 5 GHz and a resolution of 50 mas. The data were phase calibrated using the source B0441+106 with a switching cycle of three minutes on source to two minutes on the calibrator. Figure 1, top right, shows the MERLIN map after self-calibration in DIFMAP. The two components seen in the VLA images were detected.

### 2.3 VLBA

The two components of B0445+123 were imaged individually at 5 GHz with the VLBA at a resolution of 2 mas on 21 March 2001. Figure 2, bottom left and bottom right, show the VLBA maps of components A and B respectively. The observations show no structure or extension to either component and give a separation of 1340 mas. The 5 GHz flux densities of the components measured with the VLBA are considerably lower than that measured with MERLIN. This could be because either the source has low surface brightness emission which is not detected in the high resolution VLBA observations, or because the source is variable. More observations of B0445+123 are necessary in order to determine which is the case.

## 3 Optical Observations

The APM (Automated Plate Measuring machine, Irwin et al. 1994) catalogue obtained from Palomar Observatory Sky Survey 1 shows no associated optical components at the position of B0445+123 indicating that any counterpart must have a blue magnitude of $``$ 21 (the limiting magnitude detected by the APM).

An optical image in R-band was obtained with the WHT (William Herschel Telescope) on La Palma during service observations. The observing conditions were photometric and the seeing was 1.0 arcsec. The observations show a fuzzy blob approximately 1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$7 in diameter at the position of the radio components and extended in the same orientation. Figure 3 shows the WHT image of B0445+123 with contours from the original 8.4 GHz VLA observations overlayed. Astrometric calibration was performed in GAIA111Part of the Starlink Project which is run by CCLRC on behalf of PPARC. using the seven objects in the field also detected on the APM. The random astrometric error is $`\pm `$0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$3 comparable to the $``$0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$5 offset from the radio reference frame. By comparison with Landolt standard star 93-407 (Landolt 1992) the object was found to have an R-band magnitude of $`21.8\pm 0.4`$.

An optical spectrum was obtained with the 10-m Keck Telescope and the LRIS spectrograph on 17 November 2001. Strong continuum emission was present, with a redshift of 0.557 resulting from detections of Ca H,K and Mgb lines but there are no obvious emission lines which might indicate a redshift for a lensed object (McKean et al. 2002, in preparation).

## 4 Discussion: is CLASS B0445+123 a lens system?

The radio spectra for the components (Figure 4) confirm that both have similar spectral indices as required by the lensing hypothesis. The presence of two or more components separated by $``$1 arcsec, each compact on milliarcsecond scales and with near identical radio spectra (Figure 4) has so far proven to be a 100% reliable indicator of gravitational lensing within CLASS (Browne et al. 2002). Only one system with two components with milliarcsecond-scale structure is thought to be a binary quasar - CLASS B0827+525 (Koopmans et al. 2000).

The fact that the optical object seen in the WHT image is extended in the same orientation as the radio components and is larger than the separation of the two radio components suggests that some emission from both a lensing galaxy and at least one image is being detected. This is also consistent with the lensing hypothesis. If the object were a binary quasar, optical emission would be expected to be centred on one or other (or both) of the radio point sources.

From the above arguments, we conclude that CLASS B0445+123 is highly likely to be a gravitationally lensed system. On this assumption, we now try to produce a plausible lens model for the structure seen in the 8.4 GHz radio map (Fig. 2).

Figure 5 shows two possible simple mass models for B0445+123. Each one shows the positions of the lensing galaxy and the background sources with the caustics and image positions overlaid. In both models the background source has two components, a compact core and jet. They differ in that in the first both core and jet lie within the outer caustic and thus both are doubly imaged, while in the second, only the core is doubly imaged. To first order, both models reproduce the structure seen in the 8.4-GHz follow-up maps (see Figure 2). The fact that the first model can reproduce the slight extension to the north-west of component B suggests that this is the more likely of the two.

Although preliminary lens models of the system can reproduce the radio structure, we emphasize that, because of the dearth of observational constraints, we are only using the modelling to show that the lens hypothesis is plausible. However, with deep MERLIN observations at L-band we would expect to see much more of the extended substructure in the images. This, together with a high resolution optical image to tie down the relative astrometry of the lens and the images, would mean that B0445+123 has the potential to be an interesting system for determination of an accurate lens model and in which to search for the effects of the sub-structure in the lens predicted by CDM galaxy formation scenarios (e.g. Metcalf, 2002).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

MERLIN is run by the University of Manchester as a National Facility on behalf of PPARC. The WHT is operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias The observations made with the WHT were carried out as part of the ING Service Programme. The VLA and the VLBA are operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory which is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. We thank the W.M. Keck foundation for the generous grant that made the W.M. Keck Observatory possible. MA acknowledges support from the summer student programme at Jodrell Bank Observatory, University of Manchester. JPM, MN, PMP and TY thank PPARC for support in the form of postgraduate studentships.

REFERENCES

Browne I.W.A. et al., 2002, MNRAS, submitted
Condon J.J. et al., 1998, AJ, 115, 1693
Gregory P.C., Condon J.J., 1991, ApJS, 75, 1011
Gregory P.C. et al., 1996, ApJS, 97, 347
Irwin M.J., Maddox S.J., McMahon R.G., 1994, Spectrum (Newsletter of the Royal Greenwich Observatory), 2, 14
Koopmans L.V.E. et al., 2000, A&A, 361, 815
Landolt A.U., 1992, AJ, 104, 340
McKean J. et al., 2002, in preparation
Metcalf R.B., 2002, astro-ph/0203012
Myers S.T. et al., 2002, MNRAS, submitted
Shepherd M.C., 1997, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 125, p 77.


text:
# Decoherence in a quantum walk on the line

## 1 Introduction

Quantum walks on discrete lattices are of interest to the quantum information community because classical random walks underpin important classical algorithms. The aim is to find more powerful quantum counterparts. First it is useful to understand the basic properties of quantum walks on simple lattices. Two versions have been studied, continuous time and discrete-time coined quantum walks. Here we consider only the coined version. Coined quantum walks on a line, cycle, and the hypercube have been solved exactly, and numerical studies used to explore quantum walks on two dimensional lattices. The quantum walks show a speed up over the equivalent classical random walk, a quadratic increase in standard deviation for a walk on a line, a quadratically faster mixing time of a walk on a cycle and an exponential increase in the hitting time to the opposite corner for a walk on a hypercube.

## 2 Qauntum walk on a line

A quantum coin is a $`d`$-dimensional quantum system which is “flipped” by applying a unitary operator $`𝐂`$. For a quantum walk on a line, $`d=2`$ (“left” and “right”) and without loss of generality $`𝐂`$ can be taken to be a Hadamard ($`\pi /2`$) rotation. The particle then moves in a superposition of the two possible directions indicated by the coin, $`𝐒|x,a=|x+a,a`$, where $`x`$ is the particle position and $`a\{1,+1\}`$ is the state of the coin. The unitary operator for each step of the walk is thus $`𝐔=𝐒(𝐂𝕀)`$. The moments have been calculated, for asymptotically large times $`T`$ for a walk starting at the origin,

$$x^2=(11/\sqrt{2})T^2=\sigma ^2(T),$$
(1)
independent of initial coin state, and

$$x_a=a(11/\sqrt{2})T,$$
(2)
where $`a\{1,1\}`$ is the initial coin state. The standard deviation (from the origin) $`\sigma (T)`$ is thus linear in $`T`$, in contrast to $`\sqrt{T}`$ for the classical walk.

## 3 Decoherence in the walk on a line

To model decoherence in this system we use a discrete master equation

$$\rho (t+1)=(1p)U\rho (t)U^{}+p\underset{i}{}IP_iU\rho (t)U^{}IP_i,$$
(3)
where the summation runs over the dimensions of the Hilbert space on which the decoherence occurs, either the coin, the particle, or both. The projectors $`IP_i`$ act in the computational basis, and $`p`$ is the probability of a decoherence event happening per time step. This equation was evolved numerically for various choices of $`IP`$. All choices produced the same general form for the decay of $`\sigma (T,p)`$ from the quantum ($`p=0`$) to the classical ($`p=1`$) value, with small differences in the rates. The slope of $`\sigma (T,p)`$ is finite as $`p0`$ and zero at $`p=1`$. Here we calculate $`\sigma (T,p)`$ analytically for $`pT1`$ and $`T1`$ for the case where $`IP`$ is the projector onto the preferred basis $`\{|a,x\}`$, i.e., decoherence affecting both particle and coin.

The probability distribution for finding the particle in the state $`|a,x`$ in the presence of decoherence can be written,

$$P(x,a,T,p)=(1p)^TP(x,a,T)+p(1p)^{T1}P^{(1)}(x,a,T)+\mathrm{},$$
(4)
where $`P(x,a,T)`$ is the distribution obtained for a perfect walk and $`P^{(i)}(x,a,T)`$ is the sum of all the ways to have exactly $`i`$ noise events, e.g.,

$$P^{(1)}(x,a,T)=\underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}\underset{y}{}\underset{b}{}P(y,b,t)P_{yb}(x,a,Tt),$$
(5)
where $`P_{yb}(x,a,Tt)`$ is the distribution obtained by a perfect (no noise) walk starting in state $`|y,b`$ for $`Tt`$ steps. For the ideal walk, $`\sigma ^2(T)_x_ax^2P(x,a,T)`$, and for the walk with decoherence,

$$\sigma ^2(T,p)\underset{x}{}\underset{a}{}x^2P(x,a,T,p).$$
(6)
Taking Eqn. (4) to first order in $`p`$, and substituting along with Eq. (5) into Eq. (6) gives

$$\sigma ^2(T,p)\underset{x,a}{}x^2\left\{\text{}(1pT)P(x,a,T)+p\underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}\underset{y,b}{}P(y,b,t)P_{yb}(x,a,Tt)\right\}.$$
(7)
The first term on the r.h.s. is (by definition) $`(1pT)\sigma ^2(T)`$. Noting that $`P_{yb}(x,a,Tt)`$ is a translation of a walk starting at the origin, $`P_{yb}(x,a,Tt)=P_{0b}(xy,a,Tt)`$. Relabelling the summed variable $`x`$ to $`(x+y)`$ then enables the sums over $`x`$ and $`a`$ to be performed in the second term,

$`p{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{y}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}P(y,b,t){\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}(x+y)^2P_{0b}(x,a,Tt)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`p{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{y}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}P(y,b,t)\left\{\sigma _{0b}^2(Tt)+2yx_{0b}^{(Tt)}+y^2\right\}.`$
From Eqn. (1), $`\sigma _{0b}^2(Tt)`$ does not depend on $`b`$, so the summation over $`y`$ and $`b`$ may be performed trivially. The summation applied to $`y^2`$ gives $`\sigma _0^2(t)`$ by definition. This leaves only the evaluation of

$$2p\underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}\underset{y,b}{}P(y,b,t)yx_{0b}^{(Tt)}=2p(11/\sqrt{2})\underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}(Tt)\underset{y,b}{}ybP(y,b,t),$$
(9)
where we have used Eqn. (2). We note that this term does not depend on whether the initial coin state is plus or minus one and so we may include both these possibilities equally. Also, by the symmetry of the walk, it is possible to rewrite a probability function for travelling from state $`|0,c`$ to $`|y,b`$ in the reverse order, i.e. as a probability for moving from $`|y,b`$ to $`|0,c`$. Care must be taken to ensure that the signs of each term due to the coefficient $`yb`$ in the summation are maintained. We obtain

$`2p{\displaystyle \underset{t,y,b}{}}P(y,b,t)yx_{0b}^{(Tt)}=p(11/\sqrt{2}){\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}}(Tt){\displaystyle \underset{y,b,c}{}}(12\delta _{b,c})ybP_{yb}(0,c,t)`$
$`=p(11/\sqrt{2}){\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}}(Tt)[{\displaystyle \underset{y,b,c}{}}ybP_{y,b}(0,c,t)2{\displaystyle \underset{y,b}{}}ybP_{yb}(0,b,t)]],`$ (10)
treating the two parts with and without a delta function independently. Expanding the summations over $`b`$ and translating the particle basis by $`y`$ gives

$`2p{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{y,b}{}}P(y,b,t)yx_{0b}^{(Tt)}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`p(11/\sqrt{2}){\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}}(Tt)[{\displaystyle \underset{y,c}{}}yP_{0,1}(y,c,t)4{\displaystyle \underset{y}{}}yP_{y,+1}(y,+1,t)].`$
The final summation over $`y`$ may be bounded above by noting that

$`P_{01}(y,1,t)`$ $`=`$ $`|y,1|U^t|0,1|^2`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|y+1,1|U^{t1}|0,1y+1,1|U^{t1}|0,1|^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{c}{}}P_{0,1}(y+1,c,t1).`$
Using this in Eqn. (11) gives,

$`2p{\displaystyle \underset{t,y,b}{}}P(y,b,t)yx_{0b}^{(Tt)}`$ $``$ $`p(11/\sqrt{2}){\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}}(Tt)\left[y_{0,1}^t2y_{0,1}^{(t1)}+2\right]`$ (13)
$``$ $`p(11/\sqrt{2}){\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}}(Tt)\left[(11/\sqrt{2})t+\sqrt{2}\right],`$
where Eqn. (2) has been used for the average values. Combining these results in the full expression for $`\sigma ^2(T,p)`$, Eqns. (7, 8), and performing the summations over $`t`$ using $`t=T(T+1)/2`$ and $`t^2=T^3/3+T^2/2+T/6`$, gives

$$\sigma ^2(T,p)\sigma _0^2(T)\left[1\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}pT+p(\sqrt{2}1)+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(14)
Taking the square root gives as an upper bound on the standard deviation,

$$\sigma (T,p)\sigma (T)\left[1\frac{pT}{6\sqrt{2}}+\frac{p}{\sqrt{2}}(11/\sqrt{2})+O(p^2,1/T)\right].$$
(15)
## 4 Summary

Equation (15) compares well with simulation data, once a second order correction for $`\sigma (T)=(11/\sqrt{2})^{1/2}(T1/T)`$ is taken into account. The $`1/T`$ form of this correction was found in Ambainis et. al, however, we determined the coefficient $`(11/\sqrt{2})^{1/2}`$ numerically for a wide range of evolution times $`T`$. The bounding procedure applied here is reasonably accurate, numerical studies give the coefficent of $`p`$ in the above expansion as 0.09566, compared with the bound of 0.20711. The first order dependence is thus proportional to $`pT`$, the number of decoherence events during the whole quantum walk. For a given decoherence rate $`p`$, the standard deviation initially decreases linearly in $`T`$. Related results for decoherence on the coin only can be found in Brun et. al.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Peter Knight, Will Flanagan, Rik Maile, Julia Kempe, Jens Eisert, Todd Brun, and Hilary Carteret for useful discussions. Funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.