text:
# Precision and uncertainties in mass scale predictions in SUSY 𝑆𝑂(10) with 𝑆𝑈(2)_𝐿×𝑆𝑈(2)_𝑅×𝑈(1)_{𝐵-𝐿}×𝑆𝑈(3)_𝐶 intermediate breaking

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetric grand unified theories (GUTs) have been the subject of considerable attention over the past two decades 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 . While nonSUSY $`SU(5)`$ fails to unify the gauge couplings of the standard model, $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times SU(3)_C(G_{213})`$, the SUSY $`SU(5)`$ and single step breaking of almost all SUSY GUTs exhibit remarkable unification of gauge and Yukawa couplings at $`M_U10^{16}`$ GeV consistent with the recent CERN-LEP measurements. Compared to other GUTs, $`SO(10)`$ has several attractive features. The fermions contained in the spinorial representation $`\underset{¯}{16}SO(10)`$ have just one extra member per generation which is the right-handed neutrino needed to generate light Majorana neutrino masses over a wide range of values through see-saw mechanism 5 . It explains why there is parity violation at low energies starting from parity conservation at the GUT scale 6 ; 7 . It is the minimal left-right symmetric GUT with natural quark lepton unification and having $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times SU(4)_C`$ 7  as its maximal subgroup. It is has the potentiality to guarantee $`R`$-parity conservation in the Lagrangian.

With $`M_UM_N10^{16}`$ GeV, where $`M_N=`$ degenerate right-handed Majorana neutrino mass, the grand desert model through see-saw mechanism predicts much smaller values of light left-handed Majorana neutrino masses than those needed for understanding neutrinos as hot dark matter (HDM) candidate along with experimental indications on atmospheric neutrino oscillations and neutrinoless double $`\beta `$ decay 8 ; 9 , unless substantially lower values of $`M_N`$ are obtained by a judicious dialing of the Yukawa coupling of the right-handed Majorana neutrino, or via nonrenormalizable operators. However, in such cases, one of the most attractive features like $`b\tau `$ Yukawa unification for smaller values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ has to be sacrificed 10 ; 11 . On the other hand, SUSY $`SO(10)`$ with an intermediate gauge symmetry like $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}\times SU(3)_C(G_{2213})`$ 12 ; 13 ; 14 ; 15 ; 16  or $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times SU(4)_C(G_{224})`$ 17 ; 18 ; 19 ; 20 , while providing a more natural value for $`M_N`$, substantially lower than the GUT scale, has the potentialities to account for the $`b\tau `$ Yukawa unification at the intermediate scale $`M_I10^910^{13}`$ GeV. In this context it has been demonstrated that desirable values of $`G_{2213}`$-breaking scale with $`M_I10^910^{13}`$ are possible provided that a number of scalar components of full $`SO(10)`$ Higgs representations are light with masses near the intermediate scale 13 ; 14 .

Gravitational corrections due to higher dimensional operators 21 ; 23  and threshold effects due to superheavy particles have been shown to influence the GUT predictions significantly 17 ; 23 ; 24 ; 25 . Since neither the superheavy masses contributing to threshold effects near the GUT scale, nor the coefficients of the higher dimensional operators contributing to gravitational corrections are determined by the grand unified theories, these corrections add to the uncertainties and inaccuracies of the model predictions. In order to remove such limitations of the GUTs, it is important to search for gauge symmetries and possible representations for which some of the uncertainties could be absent. For example, it has been demonstrated through theorems that in all GUTs with $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times SU(4)_C\times P(G_{224P},g_{2L}=g_{2R})`$ intermediate symmetry, the GUT-threshold and all gravitational corrections on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(M_Z)`$ and intermediate scale are absent 18 ; 19 . The presence of $`G_{224P}`$ intermediate gauge symmetry has been found to be essential for these cancellations.

The purpose of this paper is two fold. For the first time, we demonstrate certain precise results in a class of GUTs with $`G_{2213}(g_{2L}g_{2R})`$ intermediate gauge symmetry with $`D`$-parity broken at the GUT scale 26 . In particular we find that in $`SO(10)`$ the dominant effect due to the 5-dim. operator is absent on $`M_U`$ leading to the absence of such gravitational corrections on the proton lifetime for $`pe^+\pi ^0`$. The threshold effects caused due to the spreading of masses around the intermediate scale are also found to be absent on $`M_U`$. Secondly, while exploring uncertainties in the intermediate scale predictions in SUSY $`SO(10)`$, we show, for the first time, that the $`G_{2213}`$ intermediate symmetry is allowed to survive down to $`M_I10^{10}10^{13}`$ GeV by threshold and gravitational corrections. We have investigated the impact of threshold effect in SUSY $`SO(10)`$ models with one pair of $`\underset{¯}{126}\overline{\underset{¯}{126}}`$ and one or two pairs of $`\underset{¯}{16}\overline{\underset{¯}{16}}`$ and find that even $`M_I10`$ TeV is allowed consistent with the CERN-LEP measurements 27  provided that the effective mass parameters at the intermediate or GUT-thresholds are few times heavier or lighter than the corresponding scales.

The paper is organized in the following manner. In Sec. 2 we discuss the analytic formulas for mass scales including threshold and gravitational corrections. In Sec. 3 we derive vanishing corrections due to 5-dim. operator on the GUT-scale and estimate gravitational corrections on the intermediate scale. In Sec. 4 we discuss the threshold effects and their impact on $`M_U`$ and $`M_I`$. The results are summarized with conclusions in Sec. 5.

## 2 Analytic Formulas for Mass Scales

We consider the following symmetry breaking pattern and derive the analytic formulas for the unification mass $`M_U`$ and the intermediate scale $`M_I`$ including one-loop, two-loop, gravitational and threshold corrections.

$`SO(10)\times \mathrm{SUSY}\underset{M_U}{\overset{\underset{¯}{210}}{}}G_{2213}\times \mathrm{SUSY}`$
$`\underset{M_I}{\overset{S}{}}G_{213}\times \mathrm{SUSY}\underset{M_Z}{\overset{\underset{¯}{10}}{}}U(1)_{em}\times SU(3)_C`$
where the multiplet S is a component of the $`SO(10)`$ representations $`\underset{¯}{16}\overline{\underset{¯}{16}}`$ or $`\underset{¯}{126}\overline{\underset{¯}{126}}`$ as the case may be. The renormalization group equations in the presence of the two gauge symmetries $`G_{213}`$ and $`G_{2213}`$ below the GUT scale can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _i(M_Z)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _i(M_I)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_I}{M_Z}}+\theta _i\mathrm{\Delta }_i,`$
$`i`$ $`=`$ $`1Y,2L,3C;`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _i(M_I)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _i(M_U)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_i^{}}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_U}{M_I}}+\theta _i^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{NRO},`$
$`i`$ $`=`$ $`2L,2R,BL,3C.`$ (2)
where the second term in the R.H.S. of eqs.(1) and (2) represents one-loop contributions and the third term of both the equations are the two-loop terms 28 ,

$`\theta _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}B_{ij}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _j(M_I)}{\alpha _j(M_Z)}},`$
$`\theta _i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}B_{ij}^{}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _j(M_U)}{\alpha _j(M_I)}},`$ (3)
$`B_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_{ij}}{a_j}},B_{ij}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{b_{ij}^{}}{a_j^{}}}.`$ (4)
While the functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ include threshold effects at $`M_Z`$ and $`M_I`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(Z)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(I)}$$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}`$ include threshold effects at $`M_U`$. The expressions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}`$ are given in Sec. 5. The term $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{NRO}`$ in eq. (2) contains higher-dimensional-operator effects which modify the boundary condition at $`\mu =M_U`$ as,

$`\alpha _{2L}(M_U)(1+ϵ_{2L})=\alpha _{2R}(M_U)(1+ϵ_{2R})`$
$`=\alpha _{BL}(M_U)(1+ϵ_{BL})=\alpha _{3C}(M_U)(1+ϵ_{3C})=\alpha _G`$ (5)
leading to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{NRO}=\frac{ϵ_i}{\alpha _G},i=2L,2R,BL,3C$$
(6)
where $`\alpha _G`$ is the GUT-fine-structure constant. Considering the boundary condition (5) along with eqs.(1), (2) and (6) we obtain the following analytic formulas for mass scales.

$`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_I}{M_Z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(AB^{}A^{}B)}}[(AL_SA^{}L_\theta )+(A^{}J_2AK_2)`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\alpha _G}}(Aϵ^{\prime \prime }A^{}ϵ^{})+(A^{}J_\mathrm{\Delta }AK_\mathrm{\Delta })],`$
$`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_U}{M_Z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(AB^{}A^{}B)}}[(B^{}L_\theta BL_S)+(BK_2B^{}J_2)`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\alpha _G}}(B^{}ϵ^{}Bϵ^{\prime \prime })+(BK_\mathrm{\Delta }B^{}J_\mathrm{\Delta })],`$
where

$`L_S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\alpha (M_Z)}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (M_Z)}{\alpha _S(M_Z)}}\right),`$
$`L_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\alpha (M_Z)}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(M_Z)\right),`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`a_{2R}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}a_{BL}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}a_{2L}^{},`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}(a_Ya_{2L})\left(a_{2R}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}a_{BL}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}a_{2L}^{}\right),`$
$`A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(a_{2R}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}a_{BL}^{}+a_{2L}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}a_{3C}^{}\right),`$
$`B^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}a_Y+a_{2L}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}a_{3C}`$
$`\left(a_{2R}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}a_{BL}^{}+a_{2L}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}a_{3C}^{}\right),`$
$`J_2`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \left[\theta _{2R}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta _{BL}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\theta _{2L}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}(\theta _Y\theta _{2L})\right],`$
$`K_2`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi [\theta _{2R}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta _{BL}^{}+\theta _{2L}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\theta _{3C}^{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\theta _Y+\theta _{2L}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\theta _{3C}],`$
$`ϵ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{2R}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}ϵ_{BL}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}ϵ_{2L},`$
$`ϵ^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{2L}+ϵ_{2R}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}ϵ_{BL}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}ϵ_{3C},`$
$`J_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \left[\mathrm{\Delta }_{2R}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{BL}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2L}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_Y\mathrm{\Delta }_{2L})\right],`$
$`K_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi [\mathrm{\Delta }_{2R}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{BL}^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{2L}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{3C}^{}`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_Y+\mathrm{\Delta }_{2L}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{3C}].`$
In the R.H.S. of eqs. (7) and (8) the first, second, third and the fourth terms are one-loop, two-loop, gravitational and threshold contributions, respectively. The one-loop and the two-loop beta-function coefficients below the intermediate scale $`(M_I)`$ are given by 22 ; 28 ,

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}a_Y\\ a_{2L}\\ a_{3C}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{33}{5}\\ 1\\ 3\end{array}\right),`$ (16)
$`b_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{199}{25}& \frac{27}{5}& \frac{88}{5}\\ \frac{9}{5}& 25& 24\\ \frac{11}{5}& 9& 14\end{array}\right),i,j=1Y,2L,3C.`$ (20)
Above the intermediate scale, the one-loop and two-loop beta-function coefficients are

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{2L}^{}\\ a_{2R}^{}\\ a_{BL}^{}\\ a_{3C}^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}n_{10}\\ n_{10}+n_{16}+4n_{126}\\ 6+\frac{3}{2}n_{16}+9n_{126}\\ 3\end{array}\right),$$

$`b_{ij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\begin{array}{cc}18+7n_{10}& 3n_{10}\\ 3n_{10}& 18+7n_{10}+7n_{16}+48n_{126}\\ 9& 9+\frac{9}{2}n_{16}+72n_{126}\\ 9& 9\end{array}`$ (30)
$`\begin{array}{cc}3& 24\\ 3+\frac{3}{2}n_{16}+24n_{126}& 24\\ 7+\frac{9}{4}n_{16}+54n_{126}& 8\\ 1& 14\end{array}),`$
$`i,j`$ $`=`$ $`2L,2R,BL,3C.`$ (31)
Including one- and two-loop corrections, we consider a variety of models taking the lighter multiplet to be

$$S=pn_{126}+qn_{16}$$

where p and q are integers. Here $`n_{126}=1`$ or $`n_{16}=1`$ imply that the components $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R(1,3,1,1)+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_R(1,3,1,1)\underset{¯}{126}\overline{\underset{¯}{126}}`$ or $`\chi _R(1,2,1/2,1)+\overline{\chi }_R(1,2,1/2,1)\underset{¯}{16}\overline{\underset{¯}{16}}`$ of $`SO(10)`$ have masses close to $`M_I`$. Here a minimal model is defined as the one with $`n_{126}=1`$ or $`n_{16}=1`$ where only one set of $`\underset{¯}{126}\overline{\underset{¯}{126}}`$ or $`\underset{¯}{16}\overline{\underset{¯}{16}}`$ is used for $`G_{2213}`$ breaking. In addition the GUT scale symmetry breaking is carried out by only one representation like $`\underset{¯}{210}`$ or $`\underset{¯}{45}`$ which are needed for decoupling the parity and $`SU(2)_R`$-breakings. There are nonminimal models in the literature as in refs. 13 ; 14  and in ref 12 , the latter having $`n_{16}=3`$. It may be noted that the spontaneous breaking of $`SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}`$ gauge symmetry by $`\underset{¯}{126}`$ guarantees automatic conservation of $`R`$-parity whereas the use of $`\underset{¯}{16}`$ instead of $`\underset{¯}{126}`$ leads to $`R`$-parity violation. In the latter case it is necessary to impose additional discrete symmetries to maintain the stability of the proton. We use the following input parameters for our analysis 27

$$\alpha ^1(M_Z)=128.9\pm 0.09,\alpha _{3C}=0.119\pm 0.004,$$

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M_Z)=0.23152\pm 0.00032,M_Z=91.187\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(32)
Our solutions including only one-loop and two-loop contributions in different models are shown in Table 1. For example, if $`n_{16}=1`$ and $`n_{126}=0`$ the two-loop values are $`M_I=10^{16.9}`$ GeV and $`M_U=10^{16.1}`$ GeV. It is clear from Table 1 that upto two-loop level the models do not allow $`M_I=10^{15}`$ GeV and in some cases $`M_I`$ is even greater than $`M_U`$ which are forbidden. Also it is to be noted that $`M_U`$ for all models attains a constant value of $`10^{16.5}`$ GeV. This phenomenon with occurrence of $`M_IM_U`$ has led to invoke the existence of lighter scalar degrees of freedom in order to bring down the value of the intermediate scale with $`M_IM_U`$ 13 ; 14 .

## 3 Gravitational Corrections on the Mass Scales

The mechanism of decoupling of parity and $`SU(2)_R`$-breakings is implemented in $`SO(10)`$ by using the Higgs representation $`\underset{¯}{210}`$ or $`\underset{¯}{45}`$ for the symmetry breaking at the GUT scale. Out of these two, the representation $`\underset{¯}{45}`$ does not contribute to the gravitational corrections through the 5-dim. operator since $`Tr(F_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{(45)}F^{\mu \nu })`$ vanishes identically. Thus confining to the minimal model and using $`\underset{¯}{210}`$ for the $`SO(10)`$ symmetry breaking at the GUT scale, we demonstrate in this section how the prediction on the unification mass has vanishing correction due to the 5-dim. operator. We also show how the gravitational effect lowers the intermediate scale by at most two orders of magnitude from the SUSY GUT-scale.

### 3.1 Vanishing Gravitational Corrections on the Unification Scale

The super-Higgs representation $`\underset{¯}{210}`$ contains the singlet $`\xi (1,1,1)`$ under $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times SU(4)_C`$ which has been noted to be odd under $`D`$-symmetry that acts like the left-right discrete symmetry $`(Parity)`$ 26 . But the neutral component in $`\chi (1,1,15)`$ of $`\underset{¯}{210}`$ is even under the same $`D`$-symmetry. $`SO(10)`$ can be broken to $`G_{2213}`$ without left-right discrete symmetry by assigning vacuum expectation value $`\xi (1,1,1)=\chi ^0(1,1,15)M_U`$. In this case it has been shown in ref. 25  that the nonrenormalizable Lagrangian containing the 5-dim. operator

$$\frac{\eta }{2M_{Pl}}Tr\left(F_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{210}F^{\mu \nu }\right)$$
(33)
yields via eqs.(5) and (9),

$`ϵ_{2R}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{2L}=ϵ_{3C}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{BL}=ϵ,`$
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_U}{M_{Pl}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\pi \alpha _G}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
$`ϵ^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{2L}+ϵ_{2R}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}ϵ_{BL}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}ϵ_{3C}=4ϵ,`$
$`ϵ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{2R}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}ϵ_{BL}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}ϵ_{2L}=4ϵ,`$ (34)
where $`\alpha _G=\frac{1}{24.3}`$. It is important to note that $`ϵ^{}=ϵ^{\prime \prime }`$ identically which has strong bearing on the prediction of the GUT scale. From eqs.(7) and (8) we have the gravitational corrections due to the 5-dim. operator,

$`\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_I}{M_Z}}\right)_{NRO}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi (A^{}ϵ^{}Aϵ^{\prime \prime })}{\alpha _G(AB^{}A^{}B)}},`$ (35)
$`\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_U}{M_Z}}\right)_{NRO}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi (Bϵ^{\prime \prime }B^{}ϵ^{})}{\alpha _G(AB^{}A^{}B)}}.`$ (36)
Now we demonstrate vanishing gravitational corrections to the unification mass in the following manner. In all models with decoupled parity and $`SU(2)_R`$ breakings where there are no additional $`SU(2)_L`$ or $`SU(3)_C`$-multiplets below GUT scale, except the SM-Higgs doublets near $`M_Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_R`$ or $`\chi _R\overline{\chi }_R`$ near $`M_I`$ as the case may be,

$`a_{2L}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{2L}^{},`$
$`a_{3C}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{3C}^{}.`$ (37)
Using eq. (37) in eq.(9), we obtain

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`B^{}={\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}a_Y{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}a_{BL}^{}a_{2R}^{},`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`a_{2R}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}a_{BL}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}a_{2L}^{},`$
$`A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{2R}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}a_{BL}^{}+a_{2L}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}a_{3C}^{}.`$ (38)
Eqs. (35) and (36) then yield with the help of (34) and (38),

$`\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_I}{M_Z}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi (A^{}ϵ^{}Aϵ^{\prime \prime })}{\alpha _GB(AA^{})}}={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ϵ}{B\alpha _G}},`$
$`\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_U}{M_Z}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi (ϵ^{\prime \prime }ϵ^{})}{\alpha _G(AA^{})}}=0.`$ (39)
The result given in (39) are valid both in SUSY and nonSUSY GUTs like $`SO(10),SO(18)`$, and $`E_6`$ etc as long as $`ϵ^{}=ϵ^{\prime \prime }`$ as in (34). This suggests an important aspect of the model that in $`SO(10)`$ with $`D`$-parity broken at the GUT scale, the GUT scale and the proton lifetime are unaffected due to gravitational corrections through the 5-dim. operator.

### 3.2 Gravitational Correction on the Intermediate Scale

We have examined the effect of gravitational correction on the intermediate scale originating from the 5-dim. operator given in eq. (33) in different models characterized by $`(n_{16},n_{126})=`$ (0,1), (1,0), (1,1), (2,0), (0,2), (2,1), (1,2), (0,3) and (3,0). The one-loop coefficient $`A`$, $`A^{}`$, $`B`$, $`B^{}`$ and numerical results obtained in different cases are shown in Table. 1. By varying $`\eta `$ parameter within the range $`10`$ to $`+10`$, we obtain intermediate scale $`M_I`$ between $`10^{14}`$ to $`10^{16}`$ GeV. The maximal effects on $`M_I`$ is found to occur in the minimal model with $`\underset{¯}{210}`$, $`\underset{¯}{126}\overline{126}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{10}`$ representations where $`R`$-parity is automatically conserved and we obtain the lowest possible value to be $`M_I10^{14}`$ GeV.

## 4 Threshold Effects

So far we have noted that the impact of gravitational corrections on intermediate scale $`M_I`$ could bring it down to $`10^{14}`$ GeV whereas the unification scale remains unaffected. The possibility of $`M_I10^{10}10^{12}`$ GeV with $`b\tau `$ Yukawa unification at $`M_I`$ has been addressed in ref 13 ; 14  but with a number of additional Higgs scalars having masses near $`M_I`$, even though they do not contribute to the spontaneous symmetry breaking. But we demonstrate here that when threshold effects are taken into account, the scale $`M_I`$ fits into the desired range of values even if gravitational corrections are ignored and there are no additional scalar degrees of freedom (and superpartners) near the intermediate scale. We also note vanishing corrections on the unification mass $`(M_U)`$ due to intermediate-scale-threshold effects.

From analytic formulas, the threshold-corrections for mass scales are

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_I}{M_Z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(A^{}J_\mathrm{\Delta }AK_\mathrm{\Delta })}{(AB^{}A^{}B)}},`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_U}{M_Z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(BK_\mathrm{\Delta }B^{}J_\mathrm{\Delta })}{(AB^{}A^{}B)}}.`$ (41)
We assume the extended survival hypothesis to operate with the consequence that all scalar components of an $`SO(10)`$ representation which do not contribute to spontaneous symmetry breaking are superheavy. Only lighter degrees of freedom are those $`G_{2213}`$-components in $`126\overline{126}`$ or $`16\overline{16}`$ which contribute to spontaneous symmetry breaking at $`M_I`$. Similarly the lightest scalar components with masses near $`M_Z`$ are up and down type doublets originating from $`\underset{¯}{10}SO(10)`$. The coloured triplets in $`\underset{¯}{10}`$ have masses near the GUT scale. We compute threshold effects on $`M_I`$ and $`M_U`$ using two different methods which have been adopted in the current literature:
(4.1) Effective mass parameters and effective SUSY threshold have been introduced by Carena, Pokorski and Wagner 29  which have been also exploited in studying threshold effects in minimal SUSY GUTs 22 . Similarly SUSY $`SU(5)`$ GUT-threshold effects have also been investigated by Langacker and Polonsky 22  by introducing another set of effective mass parameters near the GUT scale. For the present analysis we utilize the same set of effective mass parameters at the SUSY scale as in ref. 22  but use two new sets of effective mass parameters at $`M_I`$ and $`M_U`$. Although the effective mass parameters corresponding to SUSY threshold has been determined approximately using experimental measurements or well known estimations of the actual masses, such determinations for the effective mass parameters at higher thresholds has not been carried out due to lack of experimental data or adequate estimations on superheavy masses. In view of this we adopt the procedure similar to that outlined in 22  and assume these effective mass parameters to be few times heavier or lighter than the corresponding mass scales.
(4.2) Without introducing effective mass parameters, threshold effects have been also computed conventionally by assigning specific and plausible values of masses to the superheavy scalar components in nonSUSY GUTs as well as SUSY theories 30 ; 31 ; 32 ; 33 ; 34 . This method will be adopted below in a separate analysis. Following a result due to Shifman, masses used for estimation of threshold effects have been assumed to be bare masses as the wave function renormalization has been shown to get cancelled by two-loop effects 35 .

In both these cases we find interesting solutions even when the masses are assigned their expected values and taken to be few times heavier or lighter than the corresponding scales.

### 4.1 Threshold Effects with Effective Mass Parameters

Including threshold corrections, we have investigated three models corresponding to $`(n_{16},n_{126})=`$ (1, 0), (2, 0), (0, 1) with $`\underset{¯}{45}\underset{¯}{54}`$, for $`SO(10)`$ breaking and other three models corresponding to $`(n_{16},n_{126})=`$ (1, 0), (2, 0), (0, 1) with $`\underset{¯}{210}`$. The superheavy components in these models having masses near $`M_I`$ and $`M_U`$ are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. It is clear that threshold effects on $`M_U`$ and $`M_I`$ can be estimated once $`M_i^{}(i=1Y,2L,3C)`$ and $`M_i^{\prime \prime }(i=2L,2R,BL,3C)`$ as defined in eqs. (42)-(44) below are known. In any model the superheavy masses near any particular symmetry breaking scale can be parametrized in terms of the corresponding effective mass parameters 22 ; 29 . In the present model there are three such relations corresponding to the three symmetry breaking scales i.e., $`\mu =M_{SUSY}=M_Z`$, $`\mu =M_I`$ and $`\mu =M_U`$,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_i^\alpha }{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\alpha }{M_Z}}={\displaystyle \frac{b_i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_i}{M_Z}},`$
$`i`$ $`=`$ $`1Y,2L,3C;\mu =M_Z;`$ (42)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_i^\alpha }{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\alpha ^{}}{M_I}}={\displaystyle \frac{b_i^{}}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_i^{}}{M_I}},`$
$`i`$ $`=`$ $`1Y,2L,3C;\mu =M_I;`$ (43)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_i^{\prime \prime \alpha }}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}{M_U}}={\displaystyle \frac{b_i^{\prime \prime }}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_i^{\prime \prime }}{M_U}},`$
$`i`$ $`=`$ $`2L,2R,BL,3C;\mu =M_U;`$ (44)
where $`\alpha `$ refers to the actual $`G_{213}`$ submultiplet near $`\mu =M_Z`$, $`M_I`$ or $`G_{2213}`$ submultiplet near $`\mu =M_U`$ and $`M_\alpha ,M_\alpha ^{}`$ or $`M_\alpha ^{\prime \prime }`$ refer to the actual component masses. The coefficients $`b_i^{}=b_i^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`b_i^{\prime \prime }=b_i^{\prime \prime (\alpha )}`$ have been defined in (42)-(44) following refs. 22 ; 29 . The numbers $`b_i^\alpha `$ refer to the one-loop coefficients of the multiplet $`\alpha `$ under the gauge subgroup $`U(1)_Y`$, $`SU(2)_L`$, $`SU(2)_R`$, $`SU(3)_C`$, $`U(1)_{BL}`$ etc. Using eqs.(9) and (40)-(44) we have obtained contributions to threshold effects on the two mass scales, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_I}{M_Z}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_U}{M_Z}`$, as shown in Table 4 in terms of effective mass parameters $`M_i^{}(i=1Y,2L,3C)`$ and $`M_i^{\prime \prime }(i=2L,2R,BL,3C)`$. The numerical entries in Table 4 denote threshold effects at $`M_Z`$ estimated using the effective mass parameters of ref. 22 .

Using one-loop coefficients from Tables 2-3 and effective mass parameters denoted as primes at the intermediate scale and as double primes at the GUT scale, the analytic expressions for threshold corrections are presented in Table 4 where different models have been also defined. A remarkable feature is that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_U}{M_Z}`$ has vanishing corrections due to intermediate-scale threshold effects as the corresponding expressions contain no term involving any of the parameters like $`M_{2L}^{}`$, $`M_{2R}^{}`$, $`M_{BL}^{}`$ or $`M_{3C}^{}`$. Further, the effective mass parameters $`M_{2R}^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`M_{BL}^{\prime \prime }`$ have vanishing contributions to the threshold effects on the unification mass. Another notable feature is that corrections due to $`M_{2L}^{}`$ and $`M_{3C}^{}`$ are absent in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_I}{M_Z}`$. There is only a small correction due to $`M_{1Y}^{}`$.

The relation (42) has been utilized in ref 22  to compute only one set of values of $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, $`M_3`$ in MSSM from the model predictions on $`M_\alpha `$. But, since such predictions are also model dependent, several other assumed values of effective mass parameters have been utilized for computation. At present no experimental or theoretical information is available on the actual values of superheavy masses around $`M_I`$ and $`M_U`$, although theoretically it is natural to assume these masses to spread around the corresponding scales by a factor bounded by $`\frac{1}{10}`$ to 10. In the present case, in the absence of actual values of component masses in the model, we make quite plausible and reasonable assumptions on $`M_i^{}`$ and $`M_i^{\prime \prime }`$ for computation. In our analysis the effective mass parameters $`M_i^{}`$ or $`M_i^{\prime \prime }`$ are taken to vary between $`\frac{1}{5}5`$ times the relevant scale of symmetry breaking i.e., $`M_I`$ or $`M_U`$. Numerical solutions to different allowed values of mass scales corresponding to different choices of effective mass parameters are presented in Table 5.

Certain important features of these solutions are noteworthy. The minimal model-I with one set of $`\underset{¯}{210},\underset{¯}{16}\overline{\underset{¯}{16}}`$, and $`\underset{¯}{10}`$ permits intermediate scale in the interesting range of $`10^310^{13}`$ GeV for reasonable choices of effective mass parameters having string scale unification $`M_U(56)\times 10^{17}`$ GeV. Also the $`SO(10)`$ model with $`\underset{¯}{210},\underset{¯}{126}\overline{\underset{¯}{126}}`$, and $`\underset{¯}{10}`$ allows $`M_I5.3\times 10^{11}`$ GeV with high unification mass close to the string scale $`M_U5.6\times 10^{17}`$ GeV. We also note that the intermediate scale solution with $`M_I10^{11}10^{13}`$ GeV is maintained irrespective of the fact whether a $`\underset{¯}{210}`$ or a $`\underset{¯}{45}\underset{¯}{54}`$ or even a $`\underset{¯}{45}\underset{¯}{210}`$ are used for the GUT-scale symmetry breaking.

Although solutions with intermediate scale $`M_I10^{11}10^{13}`$ GeV are also possible due to threshold effects with superheavy masses as shown in Sec. 4.2, a special and notable feature with effective mass parameters is the possibility of low-mass right-handed gauge bosons corresponding to $`M_I110`$ TeV in all the six models, minimal or nonminimal. These solutions are also indicated in Table 5. Such low-mass right-handed gauge bosons might be testified through experimentally detectable $`V+A`$ currents in future 6 .

### 4.2 Threshold Effects with Superheavy Masses

In this subsection, instead of using effective mass parameters, we estimate threshold effects with reasonable choices on values of the masses of superheavy components of Higgs scalars and their superpartners in three models corresponding to $`(n_{16},n_{126})=`$ (1, 0), (2, 0), (0, 1) with $`\underset{¯}{45}\underset{¯}{54}`$, and three other models corresponding to $`(n_{16},n_{126})=`$ (1, 0), (2, 0), (0, 1) with $`\underset{¯}{210}`$.

The expression for threshold effect in terms of actual superheavy component masses $`M_\alpha ^{}`$ which have values near $`M_I`$ is given by eq. (43),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i^I=\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{b_i^\alpha }{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_\alpha ^{}}{M_I},i=1Y,2L,3C.$$
(45)
The superheavy components $`\alpha `$ contained in different models which have masses near $`M_I`$ are shown in Table 2. Similarly, the threshold effect at $`\mu =M_U`$ is given by eq. (44),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i^U=\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{b_i^{\prime \prime \alpha }}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}{M_U},i=2L,2R,BL,3C.$$
(46)
The superheavy components $`\alpha `$ contained in different models which have masses near $`M_U`$ are given in Table 3. While computing threshold effects, we have assumed all the multiplets belonging to an $`SO(10)`$ representation ‘$`H`$’ to have the same degenerate mass $`M_H`$. For example, all the superheavy components in $`\underset{¯}{45}`$ given in Table 3 near $`\mu =M_U`$ have been subjected to the following degeneracy condition

$$M^{\prime \prime }(3,1,0,1)=M^{\prime \prime }(1,3,0,1)=M^{\prime \prime }(1,1,0,8)=M_{45}.$$

Similarly for $`\underset{¯}{210}`$, $`\underset{¯}{54}`$, $`\underset{¯}{16}\overline{\underset{¯}{16}}`$, $`\underset{¯}{126}\overline{\underset{¯}{126}}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{10}`$

$`M^{\prime \prime }(2,2,\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},6)=M^{\prime \prime }(2,2,\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},3)=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}..=M_{210},`$
$`M^{\prime \prime }(3,3,0,1)=M^{\prime \prime }(1,1,\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}},6)=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}..=M_{54},`$
$`M^{\prime \prime }(2,1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},1)=M^{\prime \prime }(2,1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}},3)=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}..=M_{16},`$
$`M^{\prime \prime }(1,3,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},\overline{6})=M^{\prime \prime }(1,3,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},\overline{3})=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}..=M_{126},`$
$`M^{\prime \prime }(1,1,\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},3)=M_{10}.`$
All the heavy masses near $`\mu =M_I`$ are assumed to have the same mass $`M^{}`$. We have obtained contributions to threshold effects on the two mass scales, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_I}{M_Z}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_U}{M_Z}`$ as shown in Table 4, in terms of superheavy masses. The last term i.e., the numerical entries denote threshold contributions at $`\mu =M_Z`$. From Table 6, it can be seen that the threshold contributions due to the superheavy masses $`M_{16}`$ or $`M_{126}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_U}{M_Z}`$ are absent for all the models and the threshold contribution due to the representation $`\underset{¯}{54}`$ cancels out from models IV, V and VI. These cancellations are understood due to a theorem by Mohapatra 36 . As before the masses are allowed to vary between $`\frac{1}{5}`$ and 5 times the scale of relevant symmetry breaking i.e. $`M_I`$ or $`M_U`$. Numerical solutions to different allowed values of mass scales corresponding to different choices of superheavy masses are presented in Table 7. In Table 7, for models I, IV (II, V) we have intermediate scale $`M_I10^{14}(10^{13})`$ GeV with unification scale $`M_U10^{16}`$GeV for reasonable choice of superheavy masses. In case of models III, VI the intermediate scale can be as low as $`10^{10}`$GeV with unification scale $`6.3\times 10^{15}`$ GeV.

## 5 Summary and Conclusion

While investigating the possibility of $`G_{2213}`$ intermediate gauge symmetry in SUSY $`SO(10)`$, we have considered a number of models. At the two-loop level, we have noted that except for the nonminimal models with $`3(\underset{¯}{16}\overline{\underset{¯}{16}})`$, $`\underset{¯}{210}`$, $`\underset{¯}{10}`$ 10  and those of ref. 13 ; 14 ; 16  the RGEs in the minimal models do not permit $`G_{2213}`$ intermediate breaking scale $`M_I`$ to be substantially lower than $`M_U`$ when both gravitational and threshold effects are ignored. Including gravitational corrections in the minimal model, we observe that the prediction on unification mass remains unaffected by such Planck-scale-induced gravitational effects whereas the intermediate scale can be lowered by atmost two orders of magnitude through such corrections.

Including threshold corrections, we have considered various minimal and nonminimal models and obtained $`M_I10^{10}10^{13}`$ GeV with high unification scale using plausible values of effective mass parameters but without using additional number of Higgs scalars at $`M_I`$ (models I, III, IV and VI with $`n_{126}=1`$ or $`n_{16}=1`$). Our choices of effective mass parameters are similar to those used in earlier investigations 22 ; 29  and choices of superheavy masses near thresholds are similar to those used in earlier analyses 30 ; 31 ; 32 ; 33 ; 34 . An important feature of analytic result is that the GUT scale is unaffected by the spreading of masses near the intermediate scale although intermediate scale is itself changed significantly by the superheavy masses near the GUT scale. Thus the proton lifetime predictions in the model for $`pe+\pi ^0`$ mode are unchanged by gravitational or intermediate scale threshold corrections. Another important aspect of this analysis is that even if the spreading of masses near the two thresholds are only few times heavier or lighter than the corresponding scales, the models result in $`M_I10^{11}10^{13}`$ GeV either with effective mass parameters or with superheavy masses. We further observe that low-mass right-handed gauge bosons in the range $`110`$ TeV are permitted in the model only when threshold effects are computed with effective mass parameters. All relevant superheavy masses contributing to threshold effects have been assumed to be bare masses as their wave function renormalisation has been shown to be cancelled out by two-loop effects 35 .

It may be noted that while the use of $`\underset{¯}{126}\overline{\underset{¯}{126}}`$ permits the implementation of conventional see-saw mechanism for neutrino masses with $`R`$-parity conservation, it is possible to use a generalized mechanism 37 ; 38  with the choice $`\underset{¯}{16}\overline{\underset{¯}{16}}`$, such that one can get a see-saw like formula for light neutrino masses. In the latter case $`R`$-parity is violated and one needs to impose additional discrete symmetries to maintain the stability of the proton. We thus conclude that, $`G_{2213}(g_{2L}g_{2R})`$ with minimal choice of Higgs scalars is allowed as an intermediate gauge symmetry in SUSY $`SO(10)`$ model. The right-handed Majorana neutrinos associated with the intermediate scales obtained in this analysis are compatible with observed indications for light Majorana neutrino masses through see-saw mechanism 5 ; 8 ; 9 .

Recently interesting investigations have been made in SUSY left-right gauge models while embedding $`G_{2213}`$ in SUSY $`SO(10)`$ as an intermediate gauge group in the presence of higher dimensional operators 39 . It would be more interesting to study the impact of threshold effects in such models where certain light degrees of freedom are allowed naturally and $`R`$-parity conservation is guaranteed.

###### Acknowledgements.

The works of M.K.P and C.R.D. are supported by the project No. SP/S2/K-30/98 of Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India.


format: text

text:
# Explanation of the tunneling phenomena between the edges of two lateral quantum Hall systems

## Abstract

We identify the physics behind the results of recent measurements \[W. Kang et al., Nature 403, 59 (2000)\] of electron transfer between the edges of two two-dimensional electron systems (2DES). We find that a consistent explanation of all of the observed phenomena is possible if the barrier between the 2DES is surrounded by a strong potential well that supports quantum railroads of edge channels that, in the presence of disorder, exhibit directed localization.

,

Measurements of quantum tunneling through a barrier between the edges of two two-dimensional electron systems (2DES) in a transverse magnetic field (see the left inset of Fig. 1(a)) have revealed a richness of puzzling phenomena . The energetics of the simplest model of this system that omits disorder and electron-electron interactions is shown in Fig. 1(a). In this model, for a long, high barrier electrons having energies within the gaps that occur at Landau level crossings (see right inset of Fig. 1 (a)) are transmitted through the barrier while electrons at other energies are not . As was pointed out in Ref.  the predictions of this simple model disagree with the data: The differential conductance peaks at zero bias that are the experimental signature of tunneling persist over ranges of magnetic field far larger than expected from the very small widths of the energy gaps. Also these peaks are observed at magnetic fields larger than predicted by factors of 2-4. More elaborate models of this system have been studied . However this work assumed  that the 2DES’s are fully spin polarized when the first zero-bias conductance peak (which occurs at Landau level fillings $`\nu >1`$) is observed. This requires an anomalously large enhancement of the spin splitting of the 2DES. The absence of features due to spin in the data  is also difficult to reconcile with this assumption. Theories to date  have either not treated finite bias voltages at all or yielded qualitative inconsistencies with the data  in that regime. Here we propose an explanation of the experiment  that is based on the physics of directed localization in disordered 1D waveguides known as “quantum railroads” . In our theory the spin splitting is smaller than the Landau level broadening and thus can be neglected as a first approximation. Unlike the previous theories , we explain all of the features of the data of Kang et al. .

We carried out computer simulations of tunneling through the barrier using a recursive Green’s function technique . We found that in the presence of disorder the tunneling takes the form of a dense array of extremely narrow transmission resonances. But at the experimental temperature  the individual resonances are not resolved and we find transmission peaks with widths comparable to $`\mathrm{}\omega _c`$, broad enough to explain the observed persistence of the tunneling features and the absence of features due to spin in the data . However the transmission maxima are not shifted significantly by disorder from the energies at which the crossings in Fig. 1 (a) occur. Thus disorder cannot by itself explain the observed positions  of the tunneling peaks. We therefore carried out Hartree calculations of the Landau level crossing energies assuming a positive charge density $`\rho `$ to be present in the barrier such as might be introduced by doping the barrier in the plane where it was cleaved during fabrication of the sample. This yielded a downward shift of the crossings sufficient to explain the observed positions  of the zero bias conductance peaks for $`\rho =11\times 10^{11}e`$ cm<sup>-2</sup>.

Edge channel energies calculated for this charged barrier under applied bias are shown in Fig. 1b. The energy of each edge channel now has a minimum due to the electrostatic potential well near the barrier. Therefore electrons can travel in opposite directions in edge channels on the same side of the barrier and thus quantum railroads exhibiting directed localization  are formed. The locations of the conductance maxima predicted by our calculations of the edge channel crossings are compared with the observed positions  of the conductance peaks in Fig. 2. Dashed (solid) curves indicate edge channel crossings at which tunneling is (not) expected to be suppressed by competition between tunneling and the interchannel- and back-scattering of electrons associated with directed localization in the quantum railroad . There is an obvious one-to-one correspondence between the solid curves and the loci of experimental conductance maxima and good quantitative agreement at Landau level fillings $`>`$1.14 for positive and small negative bias. However the solid curves do not follow the bell-shaped structure at lower Landau level fillings or exhibit the asymmetry seen experimentally between positive and negative bias. We explain these deviations as manifestations of the breakdown of the quantum Hall effect (QHE): This occurs at zero bias in 2DES’s with weak spin polarization (as in our theory) when $`\nu `$ falls below a value somewhat larger than 1. When the QHE breaks down the 2DES becomes resistive and the measured bias voltage acquires a contribution from the bulk of the 2DES in addition to that due to the barrier that is our theoretical bias voltage. Thus when the QHE breaks down the experimental bias voltage of a conductance maximum begins to exceed the theoretical one as happens abruptly below $`\nu =1.14`$ in Fig. 2. This explanation of the bell structure can be tested directly by measuring the resistance of the 2DES. At high bias the QHE breaks down in a sample-dependent way at all values of $`\nu `$. This explains why at high bias the data  is asymmetric and why for high bias the experimental maxima occur at somewhat higher bias values than the solid curves in Fig. 2.

We thank W. Kang for helpful correspondence. This work was supported by the Yamada Foundation (S.N.) and by the CIAR and NSERC (G.K.)


text:
# Revised 𝛼⁴ term of lepton 𝑔-2 from the Feynman diagrams containing an internal light-by-light scattering subdiagram

## Abstract

The $`\alpha ^4`$ contribution to the lepton $`g2`$ from a gauge-invariant set of 18 Feynman diagrams containing a light-by-light scattering subdiagram internally has been reevaluated by a method independent of the previous approach. Comparison of two methods revealed a program error in the first version. Correcting this error, the contributions of these 18 diagrams become -0.990 72 (10)$`(\alpha /\pi )^4`$ and -4.432 43 (58)$`(\alpha /\pi )^4`$ for the electron and muon $`g2`$, respectively. The correction is not large enough to affect the comparison between theory and experiment for the muon $`g2`$, but it does alter the inferred value for the fine structure constant $`\alpha ^1`$ by 6 ppb.

preprint: CLNS 02/1804

Precise theoretical and experimental values of lepton anomalous magnetic moments $`(a_l=(g_l2)/2`$) provide one of the most stringent tests of QED HK . In case of the electron (positron), the experimental value did reach the precision of 4.3 ppb Dehmelt . Currently, the theoretical uncertainty is dominated by that of the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$. The most precise $`\alpha `$ available now is from the atom interferometry experiment Chu , which has 7.4 ppb precision. Since the muon anomalous magnetic moment $`a_\mu `$ is sensitive to short-distance physics, high precision measurement (1.3 ppm) of $`a_\mu `$ at Brookhaven National Laboratory may be able to open the first window to ”new physics” BNLexpt . Before taking the discovery of $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$new physics” in the muon $`g2`$ seriously, however, we must make sure that the old physics, namely the Standard Model, is known with sufficiently high precision.

The largest source of theoretical uncertainty (0.7 ppm) for $`a_\mu `$ is the hadronic contribution hadronvp ; hadronlbyl . Unfortunately we are currently unable to deal with the hadronic correction from first principles because of nonperturbative nature of QCD. On the other hand, the QED correction can be treated precisely by perturbation theory. In order to achieve the precision comparable to that of measurements, the QED calculation for lepton $`g2`$ must include terms of up to eighth-order of perturbation theory. Leading contributions of tenth-order are also relevant for $`a_\mu `$ kino1 ; karsh .

The purpose of this paper is to correct a program error in the previous calculation of gauge-invariant set of 18 Feynman diagrams contributing to the $`\alpha ^4`$ QED term kino1 . This was accomplished by constructing alternative forms of integrals for these diagrams. As a consequence all 891 Feynman diagrams contributing to the eighth-order term of $`a_e`$, and additional diagrams contributing to $`a_\mu a_e`$, have now been verified by independent calculations and/or checked by analytic comparison with lower-order integrals. This enables us to pursue with confidence an order of magnitude improvement in numerical precision of all $`\alpha ^4`$ terms of $`a_\mu `$ and $`a_e`$. The results will be reported shortly elsewhere kino2 ; kino3 .

The contribution of the QED diagrams to $`a_\mu `$ can be written in the general form

$`a_\mu (\mathrm{QED})=A_1`$ $`+`$ $`A_2(m_\mu /m_e)+A_2(m_\mu /m_\tau )`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`A_3(m_\mu /m_e,m_\mu /m_\tau ),`$
where $`m_e`$, $`m_\mu `$, and $`m_\tau `$ are the masses of the electron, muon, and tau, respectively. A similar equation holds for $`a_e`$. Throughout this article we shall use the values $`m_e`$ = 0.510 998 902 (21) $`MeV/c^2`$, $`m_\mu `$ =105.658 357 (5) M$`eV/c^2`$, and $`m_\tau `$ = 1 776.99 (+29,-26) M$`eV/c^2`$ hagiwara .

The renormalizability of QED guarantees that the functions $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$, and $`A_3`$ can be expanded in power series in $`\alpha /\pi `$ with finite calculable coefficients:

$$A_i=A_i^{(2)}\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)+A_i^{(4)}\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2+A_i^{(6)}\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^3+\mathrm{},i=1,2,3.$$
(2)
$`A_1^{(2)}`$, $`A_1^{(4)}`$ and $`A_1^{(6)}`$ are known analytically remiddi . Most terms contributing to $`A_1^{(8)}`$ have not yet been obtained by analytic means. The current uncertainty in the value of $`A_1^{(8)}`$ is a consequence of the fact that, at present, it must be obtained by numerical integration. Its precision is being improved by an extensive computer calculation right now kino2 . For the purpose of evaluating $`a_\mu `$(QED), however, it is sufficient to use $`A_1^{(8)}`$ derived from the measured value of the electron anomaly $`a_e`$ vandyck  corrected for small contributions of muon, hadron, and weak interactions. The terms $`A_2^{(4)}(m_\mu /m_e)`$ and $`A_2^{(6)}(m_\mu /m_e)`$ are known exactly laporta1 . The situation is quite different for $`A_2^{(8)}(m_\mu /m_e)`$ since most terms contributing to it are known only by numerical means.

There are altogether 469 Feynman diagrams contributing to $`A_2^{(8)}(m_\mu /m_e)`$. Of these diagrams 343 have been checked by more than one independent methods, some of which being even analytic. Other 108 diagrams, all of which contain an external light-by-light scattering subdiagram, have been checked analytically by comparison with the exactly known sixth-order vertices kino3 . Unfortunately, this was not the case for the remaining 18, all generated by inserting a light-by-light scattering subdiagram internally in a fourth-order vertex diagram (see Fig. 1). Here external and internal means whether one of the attached photon lines represents an external magnetic field or not.

Let us now describe how the error was discovered and corrected. These 18 diagrams form a gauge-invariant set and share the same basic algebraic structure. Unfortunately, it was not possible to examine their analytic structure by comparison with lower-order diagrams since they are not reducible to such diagrams in the UV and/or IR limits. Besides having been checked by two people working independently oldlbyl , the only check made was mutual consistency among these 18 diagrams. This is not sufficient to eliminate the possibility that they share the same program error. Clearly, in order to enhance the credibility of the QED calculation of $`a_l`$, it is highly desirable to reevaluate these 18 diagrams by more than one method.

This paper reports the consequence of our effort to reexamine the previous result by construction of new and independent integrals. Before describing the new approach, let us quickly go over the initial approach. In that approach (which will be called Version A)oldlbyl , we put together vertex diagrams, for instance $`llj(1),llj(2),llj(3)`$, all obtained from the self-energy-like diagram $`llj`$ of Fig. 2 as terms linear in the magnetic field in the weak field expansion. This is to take advantage of their shared structure and the tendency of partial cancellation among them. With the help of Ward-Takahashi identity the sum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu (p,q)`$ of all vertex diagrams thus related to a self-energy diagram $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$ can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu (p,q)q^\mu \left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu (p,q)}{q_\nu }\right]_{q=0}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)}{p_\nu },$$
(3)
where $`(p+q/2)^2=(pq/2)^2=m_l^2`$. The $`g2`$ term is projected out from the right-hand side of (3). In terms of Feynman parameters $`z_1,z_2,\mathrm{}z_N`$, the $`n`$-th order magnetic moment derived from (3) has a form

$`M^{(2n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathbf{\right)}^n(n1)!{\displaystyle }(dz)\mathbf{(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑬+𝑪}{n1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^2V^{n1}}}`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`(𝑵+𝒁){\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^2V^n}}\mathbf{)},`$
where bold letters $`𝑬`$, $`𝑪`$, $`𝑵`$, and $`𝒁`$ stand for parts of the projection operator adapted to the first and second terms on the right-hand-side of (3). $`U`$ is the Jacobian of transformation from momentum-space variables to Feynman parameters. $`V^1`$ is obtained by combining all propagators into one with the help of Feynman parameters. See CK1  for precise definitions of projection operators, $`U,V`$ and $`(dz)`$.

In order to check the validity of Version A based on Fig. 2 we evaluated these diagrams by a second method, called Version B, which is actually a straight-forward parametrization of individual vertex diagrams of Fig. 1, without relying on the Ward-Takahashi identity. In this approach it is convenient to evaluate the sum $`jkl(n)llj(n)+llk(n)+lll(n)`$, where $`n=1,2,3`$, since partial cancellation of singular terms occurs resulting in less singular behavior.

Diagrams of Fig. 1 (or Fig. 2) form a (formal) gauge-invariant set. But individual diagrams are UV-divergent, and must be regularized in advance, for instance by dimensional regularization, to enforce gauge invariance. For numerical evaluation, however, it turns out to be more convenient to combine it with a subtractive regularization. Let $`F_m(d)`$ be one of the integrals defined in $`d`$-dimension, where $`m`$ is any one of $`llj(1),\mathrm{},lll(3)`$. Let $`G_m(d)`$ be the subtraction term containing the light-by-light scattering tensor with zero external momenta $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \sigma \rho }(0,0,0,0)`$ as well as terms containing a sixth-order charge renormalization diagram. Let us rewrite $`F_m(d)`$ symbolically as

$$(F_m(d)G_m(d))+G_m(d),$$
(5)
where ”symbolically” means that subtraction is performed on the integrand before the integration is carried out. Now, we can safely take the limit $`d4`$ for the first term since its integrand does not cause UV divergence. Of course, the second term $`G_m(d)`$ is singular for $`d4`$. However, gauge invariance guarantees that the sum of $`G_m(d)`$ over all diagrams of Fig. 1 vanishes for any value of dimension $`d`$:

$$\underset{m}{}G_m(d)=0.$$
(6)
Thus we have only to compute $`(F_m(4)G_m(4))`$ in the end.

The integrands of both Version A and Version B were generated by an algebraic program FORM vermasseren . Numerical integration is carried out by an adaptive-iterative Monte-Carlo routine VEGAS vegas .

When we compared the numerical results of Version A and Version B, we were surprised to find that their values were significantly different. After an extensive detective work, we located a programming error in Version A, which resulted from an incomplete implementation of the $`𝑬`$ operation of (4) in the algebraic manipulation program: It left out some terms referring to the light-by-light loop subdiagram. Such a program error can be readily detected if the integral exhibits UV or IR divergence after renormalization is carried out. Unfortunately the particular error in the 18 diagrams caused no divergence and escaped scrutiny of two people. Once this error was corrected, both approaches gave identical numerical results. Thus we now have two sets of independent codes for the 18 diagrams that have been fully verified.

Numerical evaluation of these diagrams requires an enormous amount of computational effort. A systematic algorithm of computation to minimize human error is indispensable. Such a scheme was developed originally for the calculation of the sixth-order lepton $`g2`$ CK1 ; CK23 , and were thoroughly tested over the years kino4 . It was later extended to the eighth-order eighth . Early results for the eighth-order term remained rather crude for many years. This is mainly due to the enormous size of the integrands which could not be handled adequately by the computers then available. More precise values have become available only in this decade thanks to the development of massively parallel computer, which enabled us to vastly increase the sampling statistics of VEGAS.

Enlarging sampling statistics, however, amplified the difficulty caused by a previously poorly understood problem in estimating errors in a computer calculation. This arises from the fact that computer calculation always deals with a finite number of digits. This means that the error estimate based on the assumption of normal distribution of errors must be modified to take the effect of rounding-off of digits into account. In our formulation in which subtractive renormalization of UV divergence as well as separation of IR divergences are carried out on the computer, this digit deficiency problem can distort error estimates seriously, or even prevent further iteration. Besides increasing the number of effective digits from real\*8 to real\*16 arithmetic, which was the most obvious and effective cure, various methods had to be devised to deal with the digit deficiency error nio3 .

New results of numerical integration of $`a_\mu `$ by Versions $`A`$ and $`B`$ are listed in Table I. The values of $`llj,llk,`$ and $`lll`$ listed were obtained using $`5\times 10^9`$ sampling points per iteration and iterated 110, 219, 220 times, respectively. They were evaluated on $`v1`$ cluster at Cornell Theory Center. The calculation of Version B was carried out on Fujitsu VPP700E at the Computer and Information Division of RIKEN. For $`jkl`$(1,3) $`4.6\times 10^9`$ sampling points per iteration were used for 131 iterations. The program $`jkl`$(2) shows less singular behavior. It was evaluated using $`4.6\times 10^9`$ sampling points per iteration and iterated 60 times.

Results for the electron are listed in Table II. The values of $`llj,llk`$, and $`lll`$ listed were obtained using $`2\times 10^9`$ sampling points per iteration and iterated 160, 220, 180 times, respectively, on $`v1`$ cluster at Cornell Theory Center. For $`jkl`$(1,3) $`4.6\times 10^9`$ sampling points per iteration were used for 60 iterations on VPP700E. For $`jkl`$(2) $`4.6\times 10^9`$ sampling points per iteration were used and iterated 60 times.

Combining the results from Tables I and II, which we treat as statistically independent, we obtain the best estimate of the contribution to $`a_\mu `$ from the 18 Feynman diagrams of Fig. 1:

$$a_{IV(d)}^{(8)\mu }=4.43243(58)\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^4,$$
(7)
and a corresponding result for $`a_e`$

$$a_{IV(d)}^{(8)e}=0.99072(10)\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^4.$$
(8)
Here, superscripts $`(8)\mu `$ and $`(8)e`$ refer to the eight-order muon and electron $`g2`$, the subscript $`IV`$ to the group of all diagrams containing light-by-light scattering subdiagrams, and $`(d)`$ to its subgroup shown in Fig. 1, which consists of all diagrams containing an internal light-by-light scattering diagram.

The new results (7) and (8) supersede the earlier values $``$3.4387 (533) $`(\alpha /\pi )^4`$ kino1  and $``$0.7503 (60) $`(\alpha /\pi )^4`$ kino5 , respectively. The effect of this modification on $`a_\mu `$(QED) is less than $`1\%`$ of the overall eighth-order term (which is of the order of 130 $`(\alpha /\pi )^4`$), and thus does not affect comparison of experiment and theory significantly. On the other hand, the effect on $`a_e`$ is $`7.0\times 10^{12}`$ which is about 16 % of the entire eighth-order term and is larger than the measurement uncertainty $`4.3\times 10^{12}`$. As a consequence, it reduces the inverse fine structure constant $`\alpha ^1`$ obtained from theory and measurement of $`a_e`$ by $`0.82\times 10^6`$ or $`6`$ ppb. Currently all $`\alpha ^4`$ terms are being upgraded by an extensive numerical integration. Precise values of $`a_\mu `$(QED) and $`a_e`$(QED) including these terms will be reported in kino2 ; kino3 .

###### Acknowledgements.

T. K. should like to thank RIKEN for the hospitality extended to him while a part of this work was carried out. The part of the material presented by T. K. is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0098631. The numerical work for Version A has been carried out on the $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$velocity cluster” computer at Cornell Theory Center, which receives funding from Cornell University, New York State, the National Center for Research Resources at the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Defense Department Modernization Program, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the corporate partners. The numerical work of Version B has been carried out on the Fujitsu VPP700E at Computer and Information Division of RIKEN.


text:
# A near–infrared survey for Galactic Wolf-Rayet stars

## 1 Introduction

Optical surveys within our Galaxy are severely hampered by dust obscuration; therefore complete samples must be obtained with longer wavelength studies. Here we describe a survey procedure for evolved massive stars in the Galactic plane at K-band wavelengths, where the extinction is 10 magnitudes lower than for traditional V-band surveys. Our scientific driver is the discovery of young stellar populations in our Galaxy through the detection of evolved massive stars. These stars have strong emission lines, which makes them relatively easy to detect using narrow-band filters.

Massive stars drive the evolution of galaxies through powerful stellar winds, large mass ejections, and explosive deaths. These mechanisms are the dominant source of energy input into the ISM; thus the structure and composition of the ISM in most galaxies is largely determined by the massive star population (Leitherer, Robert, & Drissen (1992), Oey & Clarke (1997), Heckman et al. (1998), Martin (1999), Oey et al. (2001), Heckman et al. (2001)). Massive stars are also essential contributors to the chemical evolution of their host galaxy, ejecting material enriched in helium, carbon, and nitrogen during their lives, and depositing elements heavier than nitrogen in their final eruption as SNe.

As a massive star evolves, its spectrum becomes dominated by emission lines, arising either in a dense stellar wind, or in circumstellar material produced by mass loss. The presence and strength of individual lines are clues to the star’s evolutionary state and atmospheric structure. Among evolved massive stars with such spectra, emission lines are most pronounced in Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars and in the Luminous Blue Variable (LBV, or S Dor variable) stage, where they shed large (1 to 10 M) amounts of chemically enriched matter in a relatively small amount of time ($`10^4`$yrs) (Pasquali et al. (1997), Smith et al. (1998), Langer et al. (1999)).

WR stars have lifetimes $`<`$ 10 Myr, and thus are excellent tracers of recent star formation, and so also Galactic structure. They are also important in our quest to understand how star formation proceeds. For example, most of the previously known WRs are relatively isolated or in OB associations, but recent searches in the IR have found a plethora of these objects in compact clusters near the Galactic center (Blum et al. (1995), Krabbe et al. (1995), Nagata et al. (1995), Figer et al. 1999a , Blum et al. (2001)).

## 2 Life Cycle of a Massive Star

In the ’Conti scenario’, the evolution of a massive star is determined by the amount of mass loss it undergoes (Conti (1976), Maeder & Conti (1994)). This mass loss is driven by the combination of the star’s intrinsic luminosity and opacity due to metal lines. The more luminous a star is, the greater the outward force, and the more metals present in the wind, the greater the opacity and hence the ability to drive a mass-losing stellar wind. Our picture of massive stellar evolution is rapidly changing, as new models including rotation are developed (Maeder & Meynet (2000), Meynet & Maeder (2000)). It now appears that rotation is second only to mass loss rate in its effect on massive stellar evolution, and it may even be more important at low metallicities (Maeder & Meynet (2001)).

The current qualitative overview of massive stellar evolution is as follows. For a star with an initial mass of $`30`$ M, mass loss and mixing on the main sequence deplete the hydrogen-rich envelope and reveal the equilibrium products of CNO-cycle hydrogen burning, creating a WN star. Additional mass loss and mixing reveals the products of He-burning, and the star becomes a WC star. The star will end its life as a Type Ib or Ic supernova. This evolution may or may not be punctuated by eruptions and episodes of large mass loss where the star is identified as an LBV.

## 3 The need for NIR observations

The ideal place to study massive star formation and evolution is our own Galaxy, where we can resolve objects on small linear scales and have some hope of complete samples. It would be of great interest to find all the WR stars in our galaxy to test stellar evolution theories at high metallicity, and to learn about environments of massive star formation. Another important benefit is the study of Galactic structure as traced by young star-forming regions.

Surveys for emission line stars in the Milky Way using the narrow band technique have been done before, but in the optical, where extinction by intervening dust is highly problematic (Shara et al. (1999)). However, these surveys firmly establish WR stars as key tracers of star formation, both in the Milky Way and other galaxies (Conti (1991)). By moving to the NIR, we can identify these objects in regions where heavy reddening renders them undetectable in the optical.

With a simple model for the distribution of Galactic WR stars, Shara et al. (1999), demonstrate the difficulty in conducting WR searches in the optical. Because of high extinction in the plane, the vast majority ($`90`$%) of the Milky Way’s massive stellar population is hidden from view by obscuring dust. They also showed how this could be overcome by moving to the infrared, indicating that the number of WR stars as a function of magnitude peaks at K$`=1314`$. It is clear that NIR surveys within the plane of our Galaxy are essential to significantly enlarge the known population of WR stars.

## 4 Survey Description

In Table 1 we present central wavelengths and FWHMs for our chosen set of K-band filters (Blum & Damineli 1999a , Homeier et al. (2002)). Four filters are centered on the characteristic stellar wind emission lines of He I 2.06 $`\mu `$m, C IV 2.08 $`\mu `$m, H I Br$`\gamma `$ 2.166 $`\mu `$m, and He II 2.189 $`\mu `$m, and the additional three continuum filters are at 2.03 $`\mu `$m, 2.14 $`\mu `$m, and 2.248 $`\mu `$m. Thus each line filter measurement has a continuum point to the red and blue. It is extremely important to have continuum points to the red and the blue of each line filter because of the variation in continuum slope caused by dust extinction.

In Table 2 we list the most prominent emission lines in WR spectra, and the filter response curves are overplotted in Figures 1a and 1b for unpublished $`K`$band spectra of WN and WC stars kindly provided by P. Eenens. In both, the three continuum filters are overplotted as dot–dash lines, and the four line filters as dotted lines. This illustrates the sensitivity of the 2.17 and 2.19 filters to WN stars, whereas the 2.06 and 2.08 filters are most sensitive to WC stars.

### 4.1 Observations and Reductions

In 1996 the survey was begun at the 1.5m at Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory, and continued in 1997, 1998, and 2000. For 1996, 97, and 98, we used the same telescope and instrument configuration: the Cerro Tololo Infrared Imager (CIRIM) with the f/8 mode, giving us a $`5\mathrm{}\times 5\mathrm{}`$ field of view and $`1.16\mathrm{}`$ per pixel. In 2000, we used the Ohio State Infrared Imaging Spectrometer in the f/8 mode for a $`10\mathrm{}\times 10\mathrm{}`$ field of view and $`1.16\mathrm{}`$ per pixel. Our images are taken in ’strips’ composed of $`3545`$ images. We offset $`1/3`$ of a chip in RA (1996–1997 data) or Dec (2000 data), keeping the other coordinate constant. Thus each spot on the image strip is a composite of three exposures. Images have been obtained over $`3`$ degrees of longitude between $`\pm 0.5`$ near the Galactic Center. This is shown in Figure 2, and overplotted on a 90cm image of the Galactic Center region in Figure 3. In 2000, we moved outward along the plane to $`l=316`$, at the edge of Centaurus looking towards the Scutum–Crux spiral arm. In this region we obtained $`1`$ degree of Galactic longitude between $`\pm 1.0`$ Galactic Latitude. This is shown in Figure 4. A sample of our data is shown in Figure 5, with a small rectangle indicating the approximate position on the 90cm radio image in Figure 3.

Data reduction is performed with the CIRRED package of routines in IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, written specifically for CIRIM and OSIRIS222OSIRIS is a collaborative project between the Ohio State University and CTIO. OSIRIS was developed through NSF grants AST 90–16112 and AST 92–18449 reductions by R. D. Blum. The reduction steps are as follows. First, we trim the flat-field images if needed. For each filter there is a set of images taken with the lamps on and off. We take the median of each set of ’on’ and ’off’ frames to make a single ’on’ and ’off’ image. We subtract the ’off’ frame from the ’on’ frame to make a flat image, which is then normalized by the mean. A bad pixel mask is made by comparing the dome flats with the lights on and the lights off and using the histogram of pixel intensities to distinguish good and bad pixels. This bad pixel mask is then used to correct the flat field images.

Next, the survey images are trimmed if needed, linearity corrected with IRLINCOR, divided by exposure time, fixed with the bad pixel mask, and divided by the flat field image. Then the entire stack of images within a strip is used to make a sky image for each filter. The images are median combined using ’minmax’ rejection with approximately half the images thrown out to reject contributions from stars. The resulting sky image is subtracted from each of the individual frames, and a constant is added back to maintain an appropriate sky level in the reduced image. These images are then assembled into a strip approximately one degree long by cross–correlation of the overlapping regions on each frame. Finally, we derive astrometric solutions for each of our strips by comparing the 248 filter images to the 2MASS catalog images from IPAC and the IRAF task CCMAP.

### 4.2 Photometry

Each frame is analyzed with DoPhot (Schechter et al. (1993)). DoPhot identifies, classifies, and performs photometry on objects in an image. It makes successive passes over the image, subtracting the objects and searching in the next pass for fainter objects. The model parameters are found iteratively in the image itself, with reasonable first guesses supplied by the user in parameter files.

### 4.3 Apparent Magnitude Comparison

Our program has no strict requirement for calibrated photometry since emission–line stars are found through continuum independent line indices. Furthermore, much of the data was taken in non–photometric conditions. However, it is of interest to have an order–of–magnitude calibration in order to help assess how deep the images typically go. We have done a comparison between a typical image section of one of our image strips and the 2MASS survey images. We compared our instrumental magnitude for the 2.06 $`\mu `$m filter, which is the least sensitive of all our filters due to the combination of transmission efficiency and filter width. 2MASS magnitudes were obtained from the Infrared Science Archive (IRSA) through the GATOR query page. Our comparison shows that an instrumental magnitude of $`3`$ corresponds roughly to an apparent $`K`$ magnitude of 12 for this strip.

### 4.4 Completeness

To test our sensitivity to emission line stars, we created grids of fake stars with continuum magnitudes ranging from -2.0 to -7.0 in instrumental continuum magnitude, and emission line magnitudes ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 magnitudes brighter than the continuum. That is, we created grids where 100 stars have continuum (2.03, 2.14, and 2.248 $`\mu `$m) magnitudes of -2.0, and line (2.062, 2.077, 2.166, 2.191 $`\mu `$m) magnitudes of -2.1, 100 with the same continuum magnitudes, and line magnitudes of -2.2, and so on. At each step in continuum magnitude, we added 1000 stars with varying line magnitude.

The psf for each filter image was constructed using several bright and relatively well–isolated stars in the image and the IRAF tasks ’pstselect’ and ’psf’. Images were then created using ’mkobjects’. These images were analyzed in exactly the same way as a real image. In Figure 6 we plot the fraction recovered at increasing brightness of the continuum magnitude. There is a dependence on overall brightness, but no significant dependence on emission line strength. This is similar to what one would expect for a broad–band color.

The survey is limited by crowding (especially in the GC region) and the relatively coarse angular resolution element provided by the 1.5m telescope. Given the order–of–magnitude comparison made above with the comparison to 2MASS, the 2.06 $`\mu `$m filter the data are $`75`$ % complete at $`K=`$ 12 mag. However, the photometric accuracy decreases at faint magnitudes. This is shown in Figure 7 for the same stars that are plotted in Figure 6. The line shown here is the $`2.062\mu `$m line, but all lines (2.077, 2.166, and 2.191 $`\mu `$m) show very similar behavior.

### 4.5 Candidate Selection

In this section we detail our candidate selection procedure. As a first step, the object coordinates must be transformed to a single system. We have arbitrarily chosen to use the longest wavelength filter image as our template. Thus, we scale and offset the coordinates for objects in the other lists to the 2.248 $`\mu `$m object list. This is accomplished with the ’transform’ package which accompanies DoPhot. Transform uses a triangular search routine to match stars in different images by comparing the relative scales and orientations of stars in groups of three. Hereafter, we refer to the task as ’offset’.

We look at each emission–line filter separately, meaning we consider sets of three filters each time, the line and its two continuum filters (2.03 and 2.14 for 2.06 and 2.08; 2.14 and 2.248 for 2.17 and 2.19). The raw output of DoPhot contains 10,000 to 30,000 objects per image, and this output must first be gleaned for stars with good statistics. The first cut is on object type. In the DoPhot output each object is assigned a number indicating the whether it is a star or a galaxy, and how well it thinks it can determine the magnitude. There are three object types we are interested in: 1’s are single stars with good statistics, 7’s are single stars with decent statistics, and 3’s are fit as members of a blend of 2 single stars. During the transformation to 2.248 $`\mu `$m coordinates, ’offset’ keeps track of the object types in both lists, and records it in the output file. We keep only combinations of single stars (such as 11’s, 17’s, 71’s, or 77’s) and doubles (33’s). We throw out stars which have been classified as a member of a double in one image and a single star in another, as the photometry in this case is very unreliable.

After cleaning the lists for object type, we perform a cut on photometric error. The error is calculated simply as the errors of the individual magnitudes added in quadrature. The error cut is a free parameter in our selection routine, but we usually select it to be between 0.1 and 0.3 magnitudes.

We now have three lists of objects, cleaned on the basis of object type and error. The coordinates in these three lists are now matched, and a ’line index’ is computed as the magnitude difference between the measured value and the expected value derived from a linear interpolation using the two continuum filters magnitudes.

Essentially all stars in the images should have a constant line index (which is not zero due to filter transmission differences and sky transmission variations), that we can subtract to set the mean line index to zero. When the nights were not photometric, systematic line index variations as a function of position (time) along the strip occur. These are relatively straightforward to account for since they produce large scale changes in the line indices with position on the image. In our analysis we subtract these variations by calculating a “mean neighbor index” for each star, using a bin centered on the star, with a size between $`50100`$ pixels. Smaller bins produce output with less scatter, but the bin must be large enough to contain stars to compute a significant “neighbor index”. This mean value is then subtracted from the individual objects.

We also consider the scatter in line index as a function of the short wavelength continuum magnitude. An example is shown in Figure 8, where the standard deviation in line index is fit as a linear function of short wavelength continuum magnitude. Our final selection is done by considering the line index, the error on this index, and the scatter in line index at this magnitude. We employ a criterion similar to the ’S’ parameter employed by Damineli et al. (1997).

An example of our photometry and candidate selection is shown in Figures 9 and 10. In these figures, candidates were chosen as those with $`k0.5`$, and these candidate emission line objects are overplotted as asterisks. One is a confirmed WR star of late WC subtype (line index $`0.6`$, inst. mag. $`3.7`$) (Homeier et al. (2002)). In right hand panel of each figure is the the same data plotted, but without correcting for systematic positional variations in line index as described above. One can see that the apparent scatter is larger for the objects in the right-hand panels, and in the case of the 2.08 filter, it affects which objects are chosen as emission-line candidates. In this particular case, a bona-fide WR star would be missed at this cut on $`k`$.

### 4.6 Image Subtraction

We also use image subtraction as a way to select high priority candidates. This step is only performed for those objects that are selected as photometric candidates. All procedures discussed here are accomplished with standard IRAF routines. An image section is selected within $`+/`$ 125 pixels of a photometric candidate’s x position, and a y pixel range from 1 to 250 pixels. First the images are cross–correlated and shifted to a common position. The two continuum filters are averaged and this result is normalized by the mean. The line filter is also normalized by the mean, and then divided by the averaged, normalized continuum image. The result is displayed on the screen and examined visually. We have found that this provides a useful and necessary check on the photometric selection. Effects such as bad pixels and residual images are easily seen with this method. We will discuss candidate selection in further detail in the upcoming paper on the spectroscopic follow–up (Homeier et al. 2003, in prep).

## 5 Estimating the Number of Candidates Expected

### 5.1 A Smooth Model

Following the simple model of Shara et al. (1999), we can estimate the number of candidates we expect to find in the various regions of our survey. We assume a thin, exponential disk, where the stellar density follows a radial exponential law:

$$N_{}=N_0e^{(RR_0)/\alpha _R},$$
(1)
and an exponential dust distribution:

$$a_K(R)=a_{K,0}e^{(RR_0)/\alpha _R},$$
(2)
where R is the Galactocentric distance, R0 is the solar Galactocentric distance of $`8.0`$ kpc, $`\alpha _R=3.0`$ kpc from Kent et al. (1991). We take aK,0 to be $`0.00008`$ mag pc-1 for consistency with extinction measurements near the Galactic Center (Catchpole et al. (1990)). This model predicts a maximum extinction at the Galactic Center of $`A_K3.4`$.

The WR progenitors, the O stars, should follow this exponential law, but we must also consider the metallicity dependence for WR formation (Maeder & Meynet (1994), which modifies $`\alpha _R`$.

$$WR/O=0.13Z/Z_0$$
(3)
For young stars and emission nebulae, the metallicity variation within the Galactic disk follows an exponential drop-off. Smartt & Rolleston (1997) found an oxygen gradient in the Galactic disk of:

$$12+log(O/H)=0.07\times R_g(kpc)+9.4(dex)$$
(4)
This leads us to the final equation for WR stellar density as a function of longitude and distance from the galactic center:

$$N_{}=N_{0,WR}e^{(RR_0)/\alpha _{WR}},$$
(5)
where $`\alpha _{WR}`$ has the value 2022 pc and N$`{}_{0,WR}{}^{}=2.2`$ kpc-2 from studies in the local solar neighbourhood (Armandroff & Massey (1991), Conti & Vacca (1990)), Massey (1996)). This relation predicts a total of $`2900`$ WR stars in the Galaxy (compared with $`2500`$ in Shara et al. 1999).

We now have an expression for WR density and dust extinction, the next ingredient is absolute $`K`$ magnitudes for WR stars, which are not well–known. From previous spectral analyses, WC absolute $`K`$ magnitudes range from -3.8 to -5.7 (Smartt et al. (2001), Dessart et al. (2000), Hillier & Miller (1999), Crowther et al. (2002)). For late-type WCs, which are predominant at high metallicity, absolute K magnitudes range from -3.8 to -5.0. The absolute $`K`$ magnitudes of WR134 and WR136, both of WN4$``$5s type, are -5.47 and -5.64, respectively (Crowther & Smith (1996)). The Galactic star WR105 (WN9h) has an absolute magnitude of -6.0 derived from its apparent $`K`$ magnitude, its distance and extinction at $`K`$ (Churchwell et al. (1992)).

Given that WN and WC stars come from a range of initial masses, they should also have a range in absolute magnitude. Additionally, the luminosity of the WNL phase is greater than that of the WC phase while at comparable temperatures. As expected, it appears from observations that WN and WC stars have a range in absolute magnitude, and the WN star population extends to brighter magnitudes. Let us assume a number distribution according to a Salpeter law, that WN stars are distributed between K $`4.0`$ and $`7.0`$, WC stars between $`3.0`$ and $`6.0`$, and that the WC/WN ratio is 1.2 in the inner galaxy (from the empirical relation for WC/WN and O/H in the Local Group, Massey & Johnson (1998)).

### 5.2 Smooth Model Prediction

With this model, we can make an estimate of the number of candidates we can expect in our data set. In Figure 11 we show the number of candidates expected per degree of Galactic longitude as a function of longitude, for varying apparent magnitude limits.

Our images cover $`3`$ degrees of longitude, but $`15\%`$ of that is lost by being on the edges of our strips, and 3 strips are of very low signal-to-noise due to clouds. This gives us a total of 2.3 degrees of longitude, covered between $`\pm 0.5`$ galactic latitude.

Within that region our model predicts 18 WR stars brighter than K $`=11`$, and 34 brighter than K $`=12`$, or 16 additional stars. Our completeness tests indicate that we detect $`95\%`$ of emission line stars brighter than K$`=11`$, and $`75\%`$ brighter than K$`=12`$. According to this, we should detect a total of 28 WR stars in this region. In our second set of data, taken in 2000 at $`l=316`$, we cover about one degree of longitude between $`b\pm 1.0`$, and expect 4 WR stars.

So far, we have observed all our high priority candidates in the GC region. We have not yet observed any candidates in the Centaurus–Scutum region. In the GC region, we have found four new WR stars. These four stars should be added to those already found in the region through pointed observations. The majority are found in two young clusters, the Arches cluster (Nagata et al. 1995; Cotera et al. 1996), and the Quintuplet cluster (Figer et al. 1999), though some stars have been found outside clusters as in the present case (Cotera et al. 1999). A full discussion of our detection efficieny and description of the newly discovered WR stars will be given in our upcoming paper on spectroscopic follow–up observations.

Preliminary spectroscopic results are given by Homeier et al. (2002).

## 6 Other Emission–line Objects

Along with WR stars, we may detect other emission line objects in our survey. As mentioned previously, LBVs are related to WRs, and also have strong emission lines in the infrared. Be and B\[e\] stars have Br$`\gamma `$ lines, but much weaker than for WRs or LBVs. Therefore only the strongest emitters may be detected.

Another possibility is WR central stars of planetary nebulae. The stars themselves have very weak lines in this region, but their surrounding nebulae have lines of He I at 2.06 $`\mu `$m and B$`\gamma `$ at 2.166 $`\mu `$m.

We can also detect very young O and B stars still enshrouded in their natal gas and dust. These objects form compact, or ultra–compact H II regions, and later, when they are more revealed, can exhibit emission from circumstellar disks. They will be visible in nebular emission lines of Br $`\gamma `$ and He $`I\text{2}.06\mu `$m (Blum & Damineli 1999b , Hanson et al. (2002)). Along with the WR stars which we have already detected (see above), we have identified several compact Br$`\gamma `$ sources. These will be discussed in our following paper detailing the spectroscopic observations of our candidate objects.

## 7 Summary

We have completed a near–infrared survey of approximately three square degrees toward the inner Galaxy including a larger region centered on the Galactic center (GC) and a smaller region towards the Centaurus–Scutum arm. Our survey uses four line emission filters and three continuum filters in the $`K`$band. The need for a continuum filter on both the red and blue side of each line is driven by the large and variable extinction toward the inner Galaxy.

We have recently completed spectroscopic follow-up for imaging data taken in 1996–1998 centered on the GC. We discovered four new WR stars. The complete results, including spectra, coordinates, and finding charts will be published in an upcoming paper (Homeier et al. (2003), in prep). Preliminary spectroscopic results are given by Homeier et al. (2002).

###### Acknowledgements.

N.H. acknowledges and thanks the ESO Studentship Programme and the Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium Graduate Fellowship Program. N.H. would also like to thank the University of Wisconsin Graduate School for partial support. P.S.C. appreciates continuous support from the NSF. The authors would like to thank Ted LaRosa and Michael Nord for providing their 90cm radio image, and P. Eenens for providing his K-band WR spectra. We would like to acknowledge the continuing excellent support of the CTIO mountain staff. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.