text:
# Understanding SUSY limits from LEP

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY) is believed to be one of the most attractive scenarios for physics beyond the Standard Model. In the last few years around 150 papers on experimental searches for SUSY were published, out of which around 100 were related to the LEP results. This large number of papers reflects perhaps as well the large number of free parameters relevant to SUSY models at the presently explored energy scale. LEP is well suited to explore corners of SUSY models in a relatively assumption independent way.

In this paper the results obtained by LEP experiments within the gravity-mediated constrained MSSM framework and the minimal SUGRA scenario are presented, emphasis is put on the model dependence of the exclusion. See  for a recent general review.

In the Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) , each Standard Model particle has a supersymmetric partner with the same couplings and with spin differing by $`\mathrm{}`$/2. Large corrections to the Higgs mass from interactions involving virtual particles (heavy quarks in particular) are partially cancelled due to their superpartners. If they are lighter than 1-10 $`\mathrm{TeV}/c^2`$ this solves the so called hierarchy problem . Moreover, supersymmetric particles modify the energy dependence of the electromagnetic, weak and strong coupling constants, and help them to unify at the scale of around $`10^{15}`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The Higgs sector of the MSSM has to be extended to two complex Higgs doublets $`H_1,H_2`$ responsible for giving masses to the up and down-type fermions. Five physical Higgs boson mass states remain after the Electroweak Symmetry breaking. The lightest scalar neutral Higgs boson $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ and the heavier pseudoscalar neutral Higgs boson $`A`$ are of interest for this paper. On the tree level, masses of the Higgs bosons depend on just two parameters, which can be chosen as tan$`\beta `$, the ratio of vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets, and $`m_A`$. In particular $`m_h<m_Z|cos2\beta |`$ 111For $`m_A>>m_Z`$, $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0(tree)}m_Z|cos2\beta |/(1+m_Z^2/m_A^2)`$, and for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$$`>`$ 10, $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0(tree)}m_Z|cos2\beta |`$, however due to radiative corrections mentioned above (which depend on the top quark mass, and on the mass terms of the superpartners of heavy quarks), the upper limit on the mass of the lightest Higgs boson grows to $`m_h<`$ 135 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ .
If $`m_A>`$ 150 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ the lightest supersymmetric Higgs boson resembles very much the one of the Standard Model. Precise electroweak measurements  suggest that the Higgs boson is relatively light 222The central value moves to $``$ 110 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ if the top quark mass is assumed to be one standard deviation above its central value, $`m_h=88_{36}^{+53}`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, well in the range of the MSSM prediction. Searches for the Standard Model like Higgs boson at LEP  set a lower limit for $`m_h`$, $`m_h>`$114.4 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ ( if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$$`<`$ 6, or $`m_A>`$120 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$), constraining heavily the MSSM. The 1.7$`\sigma `$ “excess” observed at LEP  of events compatible with production of the Standard Model Higgs boson with $`m_h114117`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, together with the EW constraints, makes low $`m_h`$, just above the reach of LEP, quite probable.

The MSSM provides a phenomenologically interesting wealth of superpartners of the Standard Model particles. Supersymmetric partners of gauge and Higgs bosons (gauginos and higgsinos) mix to realize four neutral mass states, neutralinos, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{i}^{0}{}_{:i=1,4}{}^{}`$, and four charged mass states, charginos, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$,$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$. Superpartners of left-handed and right-handed fermions, “right-handed” and “left-handed” scalar quarks (squarks) and scalar leptons (sleptons) can mix. This leads to the off-diagonal “left-right” terms in their mass matrices and induces an additional mass splitting between the lighter and the heavier state.

While the Higgs sector is well constrained in the MSSM, very little can be said about the superpartners mass spectrum unless one makes some additional assumptions. As no superpartners were found so far the Supersymmetry has to be broken. The pattern of the sparticle mass spectrum depends primarily on the mechanism of its breaking.

In the models with gravity mediated supersymmetry breaking which will be discussed in this paper, the lightest neutralino ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$) is usually the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP). If R-parity 333$`R`$-parity is a multiplicative quantum number defined as $`R=(1)^{3(BL)+2S}`$ where $`B`$, $`L`$ and $`S`$ are the baryon number, the lepton number and the spin of the particle, respectively. SM particles have R=+1 while their SUSY partners have $`R=1`$ is conserved the LSP does not decay, and it is an ideal cold dark matter candidate .Constraints on models with broken R-parity were discussed in  and are thus not discussed in this paper.

Experimental searches motivated by the MSSM with R-parity conservation and gravity-mediated supersymmetry breaking exploit features of the model independent of further assumptions, like the strength of superpartner couplings to the gauge bosons, pair-production of sparticles, and the missing energy and momentum signature due to escaping LSPs in the final state.

However, to cover “pathological” situations with final states which cannot be efficiently detected or situations where the production cross-sections are low, or finally to achieve more predictivity and set limits on masses of the sparticles which are not directly observable (e.g. the LSP in the R-parity conserving model), additional model assumptions have to be made. In this paper two “flavours” of such constraining assumptions are discussed (see section 2): the constrained MSSM with non-universal Higgs parameters (CMSSM with nUHP), which is often used to interpret LEP results, and an even more constrained minimal SUGRA scenario (mSUGRA) 444 The definition of mSUGRA used in this paper corresponds to what is called CMSSM with universal Higgs masses in , often used to interpret Tevatron results and for benchmark searches at future colliders . It is shown in section 4 that in both models LEP results can be used to exclude sparticles much beyond the kinematic limit of LEP.
Perspectives to find sparticles at the Tevatrons Run II in view of limits from LEP are discussed in .

## 2  The models: CMSSM with nUHP and mSUGRA

To make the MSSM more predictive, the unification of some parameters at a high mass scale typical of Grand Unified Theories (GUT) can be assumed. In this section, approximate relations between the model parameters and the superparners masses which are important to understand the experimental limits will be quoted without explanations. For a more complete information see e.g. .

### 2.1 CMSSM with nUHP

As well as the already mentioned $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`m_A`$, the following parameters are relevant in the constrained MSSM with non-universal Higgs parameters:

* $`𝝁`$, the Higgs mass parameter,
* $`𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝑴_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝑴_\mathrm{𝟑}`$, the $`U(1)\times SU(2)\times SU(3)`$ gaugino masses at the electroweak (EW) scale. Gaugino mass unification at the GUT scale is assumed, with a common gaugino mass of $`m_{1/2}`$. The resulting relation between $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ is $`M_1=\frac{5}{3}tan^2\theta _WM_20.5M_2`$,
* $`𝒎_{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝐟}}`$, the sfermion masses. Under the assumption of sfermion mass unification, $`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is the common sfermion mass at the GUT scale,
* the trilinear couplings $`𝑨_𝐟`$ determining the mixing in the sfermion families. The third family trilinear couplings are the most relevant ones, $`𝑨_𝝉\mathbf{,}𝑨_𝐛\mathbf{,}𝑨_𝐭`$.

Gaugino mass unification leads to $`m_{1/2}1.2M_2`$ and to the following approximate relations between $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ and the gluino mass ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$):

* in the region where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ are gauginos ($`|\mu |>>M_1`$), $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ $``$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ $``$ 2 $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ 3.2 $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ $``$ $`M_2`$,
* in the higgsino region ($`|\mu |<<M_1`$), $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ $``$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ $``$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ $`|\mu |`$.

The relations between chargino, neutralino and gluino masses and $`|\mu |`$ and $`M_2`$ are affected by radiative corrections of the order of 2%-20% . However, only the relative relations between chargino, neutralino and gluino masses are important from the experimental point of view, and here the corrections are much smaller. For example, the relation $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$/$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ $``$ 2 in the gaugino region, which is usually exploited to set a limit on the LSP mass, receives the corrections only of the order of 2%; and the ratio $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ $``$ 3.2 receives corrections of the order of 6%. Thus, for example, the limit  on the chargino mass of 103.5 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ set by LEP (valid for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$$`>`$300 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$$`>`$$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, and for $`M_2<200`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$) can be safely translated to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ $`>`$ 51 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>`$ 310 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

If the sleptons are heavy the chargino mass limit excludes regions in ($`M_2,|\mu |`$ ) plane (see e.g. ). For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$$`>`$, 2 $`|\mu |>`$100 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is excluded up to very high values of $`M_2`$ (of the order of 1000 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ or more) while $`M_2<`$ 100 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is excluded for $`|\mu |>`$100 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

Electroweak symmetry imposes the following relation between the masses of the superpartners of the left-handed electron ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_L`$) and of the neutrino ($`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$),

1) $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_L}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2+m_W^2|cos2\beta |`$.

The assumption of sfermion mass unification relates masses of the “left-handed” ($`m_L`$) and the “right-handed” ($`m_R`$) “light” sfermions, “light” squark masses, and the gaugino mass parameter $`M_2`$. For example :

2) $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2+0.77M_2^20.5m_\mathrm{Z}^2|\mathrm{cos}2\beta |`$

3) $`m_L^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2+0.77M_2^2+(0.5sin^2\theta _W)m_\mathrm{Z}^2|\mathrm{cos}2\beta |`$

4) $`m_R^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2+0.22M_2^2+sin^2\theta _Wm_\mathrm{Z}^2|\mathrm{cos}2\beta |`$

5) $`m_{d_L}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2+9M_2^2+(0.51/3sin^2\theta _W)m_\mathrm{Z}^2|\mathrm{cos}2\beta |`$

Thus, for example, $`m_{d_L}>`$ 310 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ $`>`$ 103.5 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.
Mixing between left and right states (present for superpartners of heavy fermions) gives rise to off-diagonal “left-right” mixing terms in their mass matrices, which lead to a mass splitting between the lighter and the heavier state. At the EW scale these terms are proportional to $`m_\tau (A_\tau \mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )`$, $`m_b(A_b\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )`$ and $`m_\mathrm{t}(A_t\mu /\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}`$, respectively, where $`A_\tau ,A_b,A_t`$ are free parameters. Therefore, for large $`\mu `$ this can give light stau and sbottom states if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large, or a light stop for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

For large $`m_A`$, the lightest Higgs boson mass depends primarily on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`m_{top}`$ and the mixing in the stop sector $`X_t`$ (expressed here as $`X_t=A_t\mu /\mathrm{tan}\beta `$), and this dependence is maintained whether any additional constraints on the MSSM are imposed or not. The top quark mass is presently known with the uncerntainty (1$`\sigma `$) of around 5 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ , and the resulting uncerntainty of the lightest Higgs boson mass calculation is around 6.5 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{h}^0}/m_{\mathrm{h}^0}2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{top}/m_{top}`$. It was shown in  that for a given $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and top mass, the maximal $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ occurs for $`X_t/m_{SUSY}=\sqrt{6}`$. Another, slightly lower maximum occurs for $`X_t/m_{SUSY}=\sqrt{6}`$. $`m_{SUSY}`$ is typically taken to be of the order of the gluino mass, or of the diagonal terms in the squark mass matrices, and $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ grows with $`m_{SUSY}`$.

It should be noted that the off-diagonal terms in mass matrices of the third family sparticles cannot be too big compared to the diagonal terms, in order for a real solution for sparticle masses to exist. As diagonal terms grow with $`m_0`$ and $`M_2`$, for every given value of the off-diagonal term a lower limit is set on the corresponding combination of $`m_0`$ and $`M_2`$ 555To avoid “tachyonic” mass solutions we must have:
$$m_{ll}+m_{rr}>\sqrt{(m_{ll}m_{rr})^2+4m_{lr}^2}$$
where $`m_{lr}`$ is the off-diagonal mixing term, and $`m_{ll},m_{rr}`$ are the diagonal mass terms. For example, for the stop we have $`m_{lr}=m_{top}X_t`$ and, $`m_{ll}m_0^2+9M_2^2+m_{top}^2+m_Z^2cos2\beta (0.52/3sin^2\theta _W)`$ $`m_{rr}m_0^2+8.3M_2^2+m_{top}^2+2/3m_Z^2cos2\beta sin^2\theta _W`$ For an example value of $`X_t=\sqrt{6}`$ $`\mathrm{TeV}/c^2`$, the condition above sets a lower limit on a combination of $`m_0^2`$ and $`M_2^2`$: $`m_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+8.5M_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}>0.39`$ $`\mathrm{TeV}/c^2`$ Thus, if $`m_0<300`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ we must have $`M_2>190`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. .

### 2.2  mSUGRA

In the minimal SUGRA model not only the sfermion masses, but also the Higgs masses $`m_{H_1}`$ and $`m_{H_2}`$, are assumed to unify to the common $`m_0`$ at the GUT scale. Then $`m_{H_2}^2`$ becomes negative at the EW scale in most of the parameter space, thus ensuring EW symmetry breaking.

The additional requirements of the unification of the trilinear couplings to a common $`A_0`$ and the correct reproduction of the EW symmetry scale, which fixes the absolute value of $`\mu `$, defines the minimal gravity-broken MSSM (mSUGRA). The value of $`\mu ^2`$ can be determined minimising the Higgs potential and requiring the right value of $`m_Z`$. At tree level :

6) $`\mu ^2=1/2m_Z^2+\frac{m_{H_1}^2m_{H_2}^2tan^2\beta }{tan^2\beta 1}`$

7) $`m_{H_1}^2m_0^2+0.5m_{}^{2}{}_{1/2}{}^{}`$, $`m_{H_2}^2(0.275m_0^2+3.3m_{}^{2}{}_{1/2}{}^{})`$

The parameter set is then reduced to $`m_{1/2},m_0,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,A_0`$ and the sign of $`\mu `$.
In addition to the mass relations listed in the previous subsection, $`m_A`$ can be related to $`m_{1/2}`$ ($`M_2`$), $`m_0`$ and Yukawa coupling of the top quark. The stop mixing parameter can be expressed (approximately) as $`A_t=0.25A_02m_{1/2}`$. For low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`m_A^2`$ $``$ $`m_0^2+3m_{1/2}^2m_Z^2`$. As $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ grows with $`m_A`$ and $`A_t`$ (see section 1), Higgs searches can be used to set a limit on $`m_{1/2}`$ ($`M_2`$) which depends on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`A_0`$, and $`m_{top}`$. The lightest Higgs mass can thus be related to $`m_{1/2}`$ ($`M_2`$), and the experimental limit on it can be used to set limits on the masses of (for example) the lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino dependent on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`A_0`$ and $`m_{top}`$.

## 3 LEP results

In years 1995-2000, the Aleph, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL experiments at LEP collected an integrated luminosity of more than 2000 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ at centre-of-mass energies ranging from 130 GeV to 208 GeV. These data have been analysed to search for the sfermions, charginos, neutralinos and Higgs bosons predicted by supersymmetric models .

### 3.1 Searches for charginos and neutralinos

After the Higgs , charginos were the most important SUSY discovery channel at LEP. Unless there is a light sneutrino (in the gaugino region the chargino production cross-section can be quite small due to the negative interference between the t-channel sneutrino exchange diagram and the s-channel $`Z/\gamma `$ exchange diagram. Higgsino-type charginos do not couple to the sneutrino.), the chargino pair production cross-section is predicted to be large if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }<\sqrt{s}/2`$. A lower limit on the chargino mass of 103.5 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ was set , shown on figure 1 assuming 100% branching fraction to the decay mode $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0W^{}`$. Although this limit is “earmarked” to be set only in one MSSM point, it is valid as long as the chargino decays as above.

Cross-section limits for chargino pair-production were set (see figure 1). They depend primarily on the difference between the mass of the chargino and an undetectable sparticle it decays to (e.g. $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$). Chargino pair production with cross-section larger than 0.1-0.2 pb (corresponding to $`\sqrt{s}`$ 205 GeV, the average energy of the year 2000 data) is excluded for $`\mathrm{\Delta }M>20\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ , where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ = $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ $``$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ = $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ $``$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$. If these limits are combined, a chargino production cross-section above 0.05 pb-0.1 pb can be excluded. The limit on the chargino mass of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ $`>`$ 100 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ can be set for the light sneutrino as well, as long as $`\mathrm{\Delta }M>10\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. Alas, no official LEP combination exists for the chargino decaying to the sneutrino and a lepton.

If sfermion mass unification is assumed, searches for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_R`$ can be used to set a lower limit on the sneutrino mass, and thus on the chargino mass in the case of a light sneutrino and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M<10\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. Moreover, if $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_R`$ are light, neutralino production in the gaugino region is enhanced ( experimentally observable neutralino production (for example $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$) has quite large cross-section in the higgsino region as higgsinos couple directly to $`\mathrm{Z}`$. However, in the gaugino region there is no tree-level coupling of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ to $`\mathrm{Z}`$, and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ can only be mediated via t-channel selectron exchange ), and neutralino searches set an indirect limit on the sneutrino mass in some regions of the parameter space.

Another ”blind-spot” in chargino searches arises when the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ is light and close in mass to the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ . Chargino decays $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\nu `$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau `$ then dominate, and lead to an “invisible” final state; but the search for neutralino production can be used  in this case. If neutralinos decay via light stau states and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ is close to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ production with $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$$`\tau `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$$`\tau `$ leads to only one $`\tau `$ visible in the detector; nevertheless limits on the cross-section times branching ratio are of the order of 0.1-0.4 pb . The search for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ in the same region reaches a sensitivity of 0.06 pb . In the CMSSM with nUHP, the region in ($`M_2,\mu ,m_0`$) space where the stau is degenerate in mass with the LSP depends on mixing parameters: $`A_\tau `$, and $`A_b`$,$`A_t`$. It is possible to find configurations of mixing parameters (typically with $`|\mu |`$ few times larger than $`M_2`$ and $`m_0`$) such that the stau is light and close in mass to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ while the selectrons are heavy, rendering the neutralino cross-section small. However, the chargino production cross-section is large in this case, and this region can be explored by the search for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \gamma `$ production  where the photon arises from initial state radiation and is detected together with a few low energy tracks originating from $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$$`\tau `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$$`\tau `$ decay chain.

In mSUGRA, $`|\mu |^2`$ is in the range 3.3 $`m_{1/2}^2`$-0.5$`m_Z^2`$ $`<\mu ^2<`$ $`m_0^2+3.8m_{1/2}^2`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$$`>`$2 and and light stau cannot be degenerate with neutralino for large $`m_0`$. Thus neutralino searches set a limit on the chargino mass for small $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ which is close to the one obtained for heavy sleptons (around 103 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$).

It is perhaps worth mentioning that, because in the higgsino region ($`M_1>>|\mu |`$) the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ production cross-sections at LEP are large, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ production can be excluded nearly up to the kinematic limit as long as $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ is not too close to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ ($`M_2<1500`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ in the constrained MSSM). For $`200<M_2<1500`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ a lower limit on the LSP mass of 70 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ was set by DELPHI , using the data collected at $`\sqrt{s}`$= 189 GeV. In the constrained MSSM the mass difference between the lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino is less than 3 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for $`M_2>1500`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. A lower limit on the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ of around 92 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ was set in this region by LEP SUSY working group,, implying a similar lower limit on the mass of the lightest neutralino.

### 3.2 Searches for Sleptons and Squarks

Pair-produced selectrons and muons with the typical decay modes, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\mathrm{}`$, have been searched for by all LEP collaborations. These searches exclude slepton pair production with a cross-section above (0.02-0.1) pb depending on the neutralino mass and on the slepton mass, assuming 100% branching fraction to the above decay mode. With this assumptions, right-handed smuons (selectrons) lighter than around 96 (99) $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ can be excluded, provided $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_R})m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}>20`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and that the selectron pair production cross-section is as for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$=2, $`\mu `$=$``$200.
For the minimal coupling to $`Z/\gamma `$ and sufficiently large $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ = $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$ $``$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ $`>`$ 15 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$$`<`$ 85 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ can be excluded, while the lower limit on the mass of the stable stau is close to 97 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.
It should be noted that while selectron production cross-section depends on the neutralino mass and composition, the smuon and stau production cross-section depends only on the sparticle handness and mass, thus the limit presented here is valid as long as smuons(staus) decay as above.

The results of the searches for sbottom ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{b}}`$) and stop ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}`$) were combined by the LEP SUSY working group. The typical decay modes $`\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0b`$ have been searched for. These searches exclude squark pair production with a cross-section above (0.05-0.1) pb depending on the neutralino and on the squark masses, assuming 100% branching fraction to the above decay modes. For the minimal coupling to $`Z/\gamma `$ and for $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ = $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}}`$($`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{b}}}`$$``$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ $`>`$ 15 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}`$($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{b}}`$) with mass below 95 (93) $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is then excluded, as it can be seen on figure 2, .

## 4 Limits in CMSSM and mSUGRA scenario

The searches described in the previous section were used to set limits on sparticles masses in the CMSSM with non universal Higgs parameters and in mSUGRA. Limits presented in this section are valid in the R-parity conserving scenario and in all R-parity violating scenarios where a chargino limit of 103 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{/}𝐜^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ or more can be set by LEP experiments.

### 4.1 Limits in the CMSSM with nUHP

Higgs boson searches and chargino searches set limits in this scenario. ”Holes” which arise in chargino searches in the R-parity conserving scenario are covered by selectron, neutralino, Higgs and squark searches. Limits presented in this section are for $`m_A`$ $``$ 2000 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

Limits on the mass of the lightest neutralino

Efforts of LEP collaborations went into covering various blind spots in the chargino searches, in order to set an “absolute” neutralino mass limit (within the CMSSM). As explained below, the limit is set in one of the two quite highly fine-tuned blind spots: chargino-sneutrino mass degeneracy with $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$$`<`$ 3 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and stau-neutralino mass degeneracy with similar $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$. As none of these situations is likely to occur it is probably worth asking, what would be the neutralino mass limit if both of these degeneracies are avoided. The answer will be given at the end of this subsection.

The effect of various searches is illustrated on figure 3 showing the LSP mass limit set by the Higgs and SUSY, as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

The mixing in the stop sector was of the form, $`A_t\mu /\mathrm{tan}\beta `$), while it was assumed that mixing in the sbottom and stau sector is negligible. Mixing in the stop sector was tuned to maximize the $`m_h`$ for any given $`M_2`$, while avoiding the tachyonic stop. Limit on the $`m_h`$ set by LEP at low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ $`<`$ 6 sets a limit on $`M_2`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$$`<`$ 2.4, and for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$$`<`$ 4 a limit on the combination of $`m_0`$ and $`M_2`$ is set which excludes the region of chargino-sneutrino degeneracy (where chargino searches are ineffective). At higher $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ this region is covered by the slepton searches (primarily $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_R`$), and the value of the neutralino mass limit at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ depends directly on the value of the selectron mass limit for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ simeq 45 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The details of the limit derivation can be found in . “LEP combined” Higgs, chargino and selectron searches were used.
DELPHI has obtained a similar limit assuming that mixing in the third family is of the form ($`A_\tau \mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`A_b\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`A_t\mu /\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, with $`A_b=A_\tau =0`$ and $`A_t`$ in the range (0, $`\pm `$ maximal mixing), see figure 3.
If $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$=$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ is allowed by the large mixing in the stau sector (the dotted line) the limit drops at high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to 45.5 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, because another hole in chargino and stau searches develops. This ”hole” is partially covered by neutralino and “degenerate” chargino searches .
As before, the limit for “any $`m_0`$” with no mixing a drops at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$$`>`$10 due to the ”hole” in chargino searches, where the chargino is close in mass to the sneutrino. The ”hole” is partially covered by selectron and neutralino searches, and by the Higgs searches, which, in “no-mixing” scenario exclude $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ $`<`$ 9.7. The $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region excluded by Higgs searches both in no-mixing, and in maximal mixing scenario depends on the mass of the top quark and on the details of the Higgs mass calculations.
However, both in “mixing” and in “no-mixing “ scenario the neutralino mass limit is set at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, where the Higgs search has no effect. While in the no-mixing scenario it is determined by the selectron mass limit, in the mixing scenario it depends on the stau mixing model, and on the interplay between chargino and neutralino searches with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$=$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$.
ALEPH and DELPHI have presented limits on the neutralino mass, in which stau mixing is independent on stop or sbottom mixing, and has an arbitrary $`\mu `$ dependence. In such a case stau can be made degenerate with the lightest neutralino for any value of $`M_2`$ and $`m_0`$. As the sensitivity of neutralino (degenerate chargino) searches used in this case drops (grows) with $`m_0`$ the limit is set on the ridge of the exclusion from chargino and neutralino searches. The limit is close to 41 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and represents the most conservative scenario.

What would be the neutralino mass limit, if the “sneutrino” hole and “stau” hole were avoided? The most pesymistic case is still the “light sneutrino scenario”, which renders chargino production cross-section small and enhances invisible decays of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$. For the sneutrino lighter than the chargino and lighter than 65 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ DELPHI alone sets a limit on the chargino mass of around 100 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, independent of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ( see ). Similar limit can be set for the sneutrino mass just above the chargino mass. If the data from all LEP experiments are combined the gap in the sneutrino masses 65-100 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is closed down to $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ = $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ $``$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$$``$ 10 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, resulting in the chargino mass limit $``$ 100 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, and neutralino mass limit of $``$ 50 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$(valid as long as $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ = $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ $``$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$$`>`$ 10 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$). Alas, no official combination of this decay channel was performed so far. It is also interesting to note, that outside the stau and sneutrino hole the limit on the neutralino mass can be set which is independent of the sfermion unification assumption.

Limits on the masses of other sparticles

Limits on the masses of other sparticles can be set within the CMSSM, which do not depend on a specific decay channel, but take into account all decay channels appearing in the model. Also limits on the masses of sparticles, which are not directly visible or produced at LEP can be set, due to their relations to the masses of observable sparticles (see section 2.1).

Aleph and DELPHI have set limits on the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_R}`$ which are valid within the CMSSM (see figures 4).

Aleph limit is also valid for the mass configurations where the selectron is degenerate with the lightest neutralino, which occur at small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. At higher $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_R}`$ ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$) mass limit is close to 92-94 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ (88-94 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$). These limits were set for no mixing in the stau sector, which represents in this case the most conservative scenario.

Limits on the masses of the partners of light quarks and on the gluino mass can be set as well, due to their relation to the chargino and slepton masses (see section 2.1 and ).
L3 collaboration  has used chargino-gluino mass relation to set an indirect lower limit on the gluino mass of $``$ 300 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ (see figure 5). A lower mass limit on “light” squarks was set as well, exploiting the stop and sbottom searches, and assuming that all squarks are mass-degenerate.

The relation between the chargino ($`M_2`$), slepton ($`m_0`$, $`M_2`$) and light squark masses ($`m_0`$, $`M_2`$) was exploited in  to set an indirect limit on the $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ mass of $``$ 300 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

### 4.2 Limits in the mSUGRA scenario

Limits on the mSUGRA model for $`A_0=0`$ were discussed in detail in ex. . The Higgs search plays a major rôle in setting these limits, and the value of $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ depends crucially on $`A_t0.25A_02m_{1/2}`$, as it was noted in for example . A range of $`A_0`$ was studied by the LEP SUSY working group , and the dependence of the results on the value of the top mass was discussed. Even with the top mass fixed there is an additional dependence of the exclusion on the accuracy of the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ calculations.

Exclusion regions in the mSUGRA scenario obtained by the LEP SUSY working group can be seen on figure 6 for an example value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and for a range of $`A_0`$ values.

Excluded regions in $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ can be translated into limits on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ , $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and other sparticles. Limits on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ obtained by LEP SUSY WG  are illustrated on figure 6 for several values of $`A_0`$ and $`m_{top}`$. $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ is close to 2$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$.

As shown in  for large negative values of $`A_0`$ Higgs searches do not exclude higher $`m_{1/2}`$ than the chargino searches already at moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ thus the limit on the neutralino mass is set at the value of around 50 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ by the chargino searches, with neutralino and slepton searches covering the stau and sneutrino hole.

ALEPH  obtained limits on selectron ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_R`$,$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_L`$) and sneutrino masses within mSUGRA for $`A_0=0`$. An example $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_R}`$ limit as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is shown on figure 7. The limit is set by the Higgs searches at low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. At high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ where the stau mixing is important also for lower $`m_{1/2}`$ the $`m_0`$ (and thus selectron mass) is pushed up by the requirement that the stau is not the LSP. Both the Higgs exclusion and stau-LSP region depend on the value of $`A_0`$.
Similar limits for sleptons for several values of $`A_0`$ are presented in ) along with limits on squarks and gluino.

## 5 Summary

LEP places relevant direct and indirect limits on the masses of nearly all predicted sparticles. Direct limits are typically limited by the kinematic reach of LEP and are valid for a specific decay channel of a sparticle. Indirect limits often reach beyond the kinematic limit, and are valid for all decays appearing in a specific more constrained version of the MSSM. However, they make use of relations between the sparticle masses, which are specific for the model in question (CMSSM or mSUGRA).

## 6 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Organizers of this enjoyable Conference for the invitation.

## 7 References


format: text

text:
# Energies, transition rates, and electron electric dipole moment enhancement factors for Ce IV and Pr V

## I Introduction

Recently, searches for an electron electric dipole moment (EDM) in atoms and molecules have gained considerable interest. Since an electron EDM violates time-reversal symmetry and parity, the discovery of an EDM would have many implications for modern fundamental theories (a general overview is given by Khriplovich and Lamoreaux (1997)). The best limit on the value of the electron EDM was obtained by Regan et al. (2002) in Tl, $`d_e<1.6\times 10^{27}`$ e cm. Although there is a large enhancement ($`600`$) of the electron EDM in Tl, the density of atoms in a beam is much lower than in a solid-state system. To utilize the advantage of high densities, it has been proposed to use Gadolinium Gallium Garnet Gd3Ga5O12 or Gadolinium Iron Garnet Gd3Fe5O12 (densities $`10^{22}`$/cc) in EDM experiments Lamoreaux (2002); Hunter . There are various features of these materials that make them particularly useful for such experiments. For example, magneto-electric effects are forbidden owing to the FCC symmetry of the crystals, simplifying the exclusion of systematics; the crystal Gd3Fe5O12 has a very high resistivity ($`10^{16}\mathrm{\Omega }`$-cm); and spin alignment is relatively easy. The electron EDM enhancement for the Gd3+ ion ($`23`$) is much smaller than for Tl; nevertheless there is a substantial gain in the number of atoms.

Motivated by proposed EDM measurements, calculations of EDM enhancement have been performed recently Buhmann et al. (2002); Kuenzi et al. (2002). Core polarization effects in Gd IV were discussed by Dzuba et al. (2002) and found to decrease the size of EDM enhancement factor from -3.3 to -2.2 . Thus, there is a strong sensitivity of the EDM enhancement to many-body effects and further investigation is necessary.

The ion Gd+3, which has a $`4f^7`$ ground-state configuration is extremely complicated and difficult for atomic theory, though some understanding was gained by Dzuba et al. (2002) using a relativistic configuration-interaction (RCI) method and the widely used Cowan Cowan (1981) code. As mentioned above, core polarization was found to be substantial. For example, to match the experimental $`4f5d`$ transition energies, scaling factors of 0.8 and 0.85 for Coulomb integrals were used in the RCI and Cowan codes, respectively. In addition, a polarization potential was introduced in RCI code to match experimental energies and a systematic energy shift of $`18,000`$ cm-1 was made in the Cowan code. This shift can be attributed to core polarization by a single valence electron. An ab-initio investigation of correlation should help to understand these empirical adjustments. The simplest ions (those having a single $`4f`$ valence electron) which exhibit core-polarization effects similar to Gd IV are Ce IV and Pr V. To gain a clearer understanding of the role of core polarization and other many-body effects in Ce IV and Pr V, we calculate energies, dipole transition matrix elements, and EDM enhancement factors for low lying states using relativistic many-body perturbation theory (MBPT).

The present calculations of energies are carried out to third order in MBPT using the methods developed earlier to study the Li, Na, and Cu isoelectronic sequences Johnson et al. (1988a, b); Johnson et al. (1990). The calculations of transition matrix elements is also carried out to third order in MBPT using the methods developed in Johnson et al. (1996) to treat the alkali atoms and alkalilike ions. Here, we use the gauge-independent version of the third-order MBPT code described in Savukov and Johnson (2000). The calculations of electron EDM enhancement factors, which involve a sum over intermediate states, are carried out in the random-phase approximation (RPA) following a procedure similar to that described in Johnson et al. (1986).

It should be mentioned that Ce+3, which has a $`4f_{5/2}`$ ground state and an observed magnetic moment 2.3-2.5 $`\mu _B`$ can be embedded into garnet crystals and used in EDM experiments of the type proposed in Lamoreaux (2002). In those experiments, a strong electric field polarizes ions which in turn produce a small magnetic field that is measured in a sensitive SQUID detector. The magnetic field at low temperatures is proportional to the product of the electric dipole moment of the ion and its magnetic moment. The estimated EDM of Gd+3 as is a factor of about 3 larger than for Ce+3 and the magnetic moment of Gd+3 (7.9-8.0 $`\mu _B`$) is also about three times larger; therefore, there is an overall advantage of nine in Gd+3 compared to Ce+3. Nevertheless, the Ce+3 ion could still compete in setting experimental limits on the electron EDM owing to the fact that its ionic EDM has significantly smaller theoretical uncertainty.

## II Calculation of energies

First-, second- and third-order Coulomb energies $`E^{(n)},n=\mathrm{1..3}`$, and first- and second-order Breit energies $`B^{(n)},n=1,2`$, calculated using methods described in Refs. Johnson et al. (1988a, b); Johnson et al. (1990), are presented in Table 1 along with the resultant theoretical energies $`E_{\text{tot}}`$ and predicted energies $`E_{\text{NIST}}`$ from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) given by Martin et al. (1978). We see that second-order corrections are large and improve the accuracy of the first-order Dirac-Hartree-Fock (DHF) energies. Third-order MBPT further improves the ground state energy. However, the third-order correction is relatively large (roughly one-third of the second order) and overshoots the experimental value, which indicates that oscillations in higher orders are likely. Using a geometric progression with $`q=1/3`$ we can extrapolate the second- and third-order values to give a limiting ground-state energy $`296420`$ cm-1 for Ce+3, in close agreement with the predicted value from Martin et al. (1978). The corresponding extrapolation for Pr+4 gives $`468290`$ cm-1 differing from the predicted ground-state energy given in Martin et al. (1978) by about 4000 cm-1. This rather large difference casts doubt on the threshold energy of Pr V predicted in Martin et al. (1978) and explains the large differences with the NIST energies seen in lower half of Table 1.

In Refs. Johnson et al. (1988a, b); Johnson et al. (1990), where the ionic ground-states were $`2s`$, $`3s`$, and $`4s`$, respectively, the third-order correction was uniformly much smaller than the second-order correction. The relatively large size of the third-order corrections in Ce IV and Pr V arise because of the double-well feature of the $`4f`$ Coulomb potential discussed, for example, by Cheng and Froese-Fischer (1983).

## III Calculation of transition matrix elements and transition rates

Transition matrix elements provide another test of quality of atomic-structure calculations and another measure of the size of correlation corrections. Third-order MBPT reduced matrix elements for transitions between low-lying states of Ce+3 and Pr+4 are presented in Table 2. The first-order reduced matrix elements $`Z^{(1)}`$ are obtained from length-form DHF calculations. Length-form and velocity-form matrix elements differ typically by 10%. Second-order matrix elements in the table $`Z^{(2)}`$, which include $`Z^{(1)}`$, are extended to include all higher-order corrections associated with the random-phase approximation. These second-order calculations are practically gauge independent. In the present calculations, length- and velocity-form matrix elements in the RPA agree to six or more digits. The third-order matrix elements $`Z^{(3)}`$ include $`Z^{(2)}`$ plus Brueckner-orbital (BO), structural radiation, and normalization corrections described, for example, in Johnson et al. (1996). These calculations are carried out in a gauge-independent manner, including appropriate derivative terms, as described in Savukov and Johnson (2000). We truncated our basis set to include only those partial waves with $`l8`$, and found that length- and velocity-form third-order reduced matrix elements agreed to 4 digits.

As can be seen in Table 2, RPA corrections are very large, 10-40%, being largest for $`4f5d`$ transitions, and must be taken into account. Such behavior can be attributed to core shielding which is substantial because valence electrons penetrate deeply into the core. Third-order corrections are smaller, 2-4% scaling as $`1/Z_{\text{ion}}`$. If such scaling holds in higher orders, we can estimate the accuracy of our calculations to be 0.4-0.8%. The dominant contribution in third order comes from the BO correction which is approximately equal to the sum of the other third-order corrections.

Transition rates $`A`$ (s-1), oscillator strengths $`f`$, and wavelengths $`\lambda `$ (Å) for electric dipole transitions between low-lying states of Ce IV and Pr V are given in Table 3. These data are calculated using the dipole matrix elements $`Z^{(3)}`$ from Table 2 and predicted NIST transition energies Martin et al. (1978). In the two final columns of Table 3, we compare our MBPT wavelengths with the wavelengths from Ref. Martin et al. (1978). We also compare our MBPT oscillator strengths with theoretical oscillator strengths obtained by Migdalek and Wyrozumska (1987). The data in Migdalek and Wyrozumska (1987) were obtained using a relativistic model potential (RMP) approach together with a core-polarization (CP) model potential. Our data and that from Ref. Migdalek and Wyrozumska (1987) agree well for $`5d6p`$ and $`6s6p`$ transitions but differ for $`4f5d`$ transition where $`f`$ values are very small.

## IV EDM enhancement

### IV.1 Basic equations

According to Schiff’s theorem Schiff (1963), the electric dipole moment of an atom induced by an intrinsic electron EDM vanishes in the nonrelativistic limit; however, as shown by Sandars (1968), the atomic EDM is nonvanishing relativistically and can be a large multiple of the intrinsic electron moment for heavy atoms. If we assume that the electron has an intrinsic EDM $`d_e`$, then the EDM of a many-electric atom $`D`$ may be written Johnson et al. (1986)

$$D=2\underset{n}{}\frac{vj_v|eZ|nn|H_{\text{edm}}|vj_v}{E_vE_n},$$
(1)
where $`eZ`$ is the dipole electric operator

$$eZ=\underset{i}{}ez_i,$$

and $`H_{\text{edm}}`$ is an equivalent EDM interaction Johnson et al. (1986) given by

$$H_{\text{edm}}=2i\frac{d_e}{e}c\underset{j}{}p_j^2\beta _j(\gamma _5)_j=H_{\text{edm}}^{}.$$

This equivalent interaction, which automatically accounts for Schiff’s theorem, is rotationally invariant and therefore conserves angular momentum; it violates both parity and time-reversal symmetry.

For an atom or ion with one valence electron, one-electron matrix elements of $`H_{\text{edm}}`$ may be written in lowest order as

$$nm_n|H_{\text{edm}}|vj_v=\delta _{\kappa _n\kappa _v}\delta _{m_nj_v}nH_{\text{edm}}v,$$
(2)
where the (somewhat unconventional) reduced matrix element is

$$\begin{array}{c}nH_{\text{edm}}v=\hfill \\ \hfill 2c\frac{d_e}{e}_0^{\mathrm{}}dr[G_n(r)\frac{d^2F_v}{dr^2}\frac{\kappa _v(\kappa _v1)}{r^2}G_n(r)F_v(r)\\ \hfill +F_n(r)\frac{d^2G_v}{dr^2}\frac{\kappa _v(\kappa _v+1)}{r^2}F_n(r)G_v(r)].\end{array}$$
(3)
In the above equation, $`G_k(r)`$ and $`F_k(r)`$ are the large and small components, respectively, of radial Dirac wave functions. Similarly, we may write

$$vj_v|eZ|nj_v=\sqrt{\frac{j_v}{(2j_v+1)(j_v+1)}}veZn$$
(4)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}veZn=e\kappa _vC_1\kappa _v\times \hfill \\ \hfill _0^{\mathrm{}}r𝑑r\left[G_v(r)G_n(r)+F_v(r)F_n(r)\right],\end{array}$$
(5)
$`C_{1q}(\widehat{r})`$ being a normalized spherical harmonic. The expression for the atomic dipole moment in lowest-order MBPT then reduces to

$$D^{(1)}=2\sqrt{\frac{j_v}{(2j_v+1)(j_v+1)}}\underset{i}{}\frac{veZiiH_{\text{edm}}v}{ϵ_vϵ_i},$$
(6)
where $`ϵ_k`$ are eigenvalues of the valence-electron Dirac equation.

### IV.2 RPA correlation corrections

Lowest-order calculations of the induced atomic EDM are carried out in a frozen-core $`V^{N1}`$ DHF potential. Such calculations were shown in Johnson et al. (1986) to be very sensitive to correlation corrections. For that reason, the lowest-order “bare” matrix elements in Eq. (6) are replaced by “dressed” RPA matrix elements.

#### IV.2.1 Z-RPA

Thus, we replace the lowest-order dipole matrix element $`wZv`$ in Eq. (6) by

$`wZ^{\text{RPA}}v=wZv`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{an}{}}(1)^{an+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{aZ^{\text{RPA}}nZ_1(wnva)}{ϵ_aϵ_n}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{an}{}}(1)^{an+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_1(wavn)nZ^{\text{RPA}}a}{ϵ_aϵ_n}},`$
where the index $`a`$ extends over all core orbitals and the index $`n`$ extends over all virtual orbitals permitted by angular-momentum selection rules. The quantities $`Z_J(ijkl)`$ are Coulomb integrals

$$Z_J(ijkl)=X_J(ijkl)+[J]\underset{L}{}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}i& k& J\\ l& j& L\end{array}\right\}X_L(ijlk),$$
(8)
where $`X_J(ijkl)`$ are defined by

$$X_J(ijkl)=(1)^JiC_JkjC_JlR_J(ijkl),$$

$`R_J(ijkl)`$ being a Slater integral

$$\begin{array}{c}R_J(ijkl)=_0^{\mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r𝑑r^{}\frac{r_<^J}{r_>^{J+1}}\left[G_i(r)G_k(r)+F_i(r)F_k(r)\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \left[G_j(r^{})G_l(r^{})+F_j(r^{})F_l(r^{})\right].\end{array}$$

We designate the corresponding approximation to the atomic EDM by $`D_Z^{\text{RPA}}`$. Note that if we replace $`nZ^{\text{RPA}}a`$ by $`nZa`$ on the right hand side of Eq. (7), then we obtain the second-order correlation correction to the valence-excited dipole matrix element. The atomic EDM calculated in this approximation is designated by $`D_Z^{(2)}`$.

#### IV.2.2 H-RPA

Similarly, we replace the bare matrix element of the EDM interaction $`wH_{\text{edm}}v`$ by its dressed counterpart

$`wH_{\text{edm}}^{\text{RPA}}v=wH_{\text{edm}}v`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{an}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{[j_a]}{[j_v]}}}{\displaystyle \frac{aH_{\text{edm}}^{\text{RPA}}nZ_0(wnva)}{ϵ_aϵ_n}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{an}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{[j_a]}{[j_v]}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_0(wavn)nH_{\text{edm}}^{\text{RPA}}a}{ϵ_aϵ_n}}.`$
We designate the approximation to $`D`$ obtained using the dressed matrix element from Eq. (9) by $`D_H^{\text{RPA}}`$. Again, if we replace dressed matrix elements by bare matrix elements on the right hand side of Eq. (9), we obtain a second-order approximation to $`wH_{\text{edm}}v`$. The resulting correction to the atomic EDM is designated by $`D_H^{(2)}`$.

Core-excited matrix elements $`nZ^{\text{RPA}}a`$ and $`nH_{\text{edm}}^{\text{RPA}}a`$ in Eqs. (7) and (9) satisfy sets of coupled equations given explicitly in Johnson et al. (1996).

### IV.3 Calculations of EDM enhancement factors

The sums over intermediate states in Eqs. (6-9) are carried out using basis functions obtained as linear combinations of B-splines as described in Johnson et al. (1988c). We use 40 splines of order 7 and constrain the ions to lie in a cavity of radius $`R=35`$ a.u. for Ce+3 and 30 a.u. for Pr+4.

A detailed breakdown of the contributions to $`D`$ for $`4f`$ states of Ce IV is given in Table 4, where we list the DHF approximation, $`D^{(1)}`$, the second-order correction $`D^{(2)}`$, the RPA approximation, $`D^{\text{RPA}}`$, and the individual contributions to the second-order and RPA corrections from the dipole and weak-interaction matrix elements. One can see from the table that the correlation corrections to the weak-interaction matrix element are comparable to or larger than the lowest order matrix element. Moreover, there are significant changes in these correlation corrections going from second-order MBPT to full RPA calculations.

Finally, in Table 5, we present DHF and RPA values of the EDM enhancement factors $`D/d_e`$ for the low-lying $`4f`$, $`5d`$, $`6s`$, and $`6p`$ states of Ce IV and Pr V.

## V Conclusion

We have studied energies, transition probabilities, and EDM enhancement factors for Ce+3 and Pr+4. We found that perturbation theory converges quite slowly and that RPA corrections are the dominant correlation corrections for transitions. We use our third-order MBPT with “dressed” matrix elements to obtain accurate transition rates. The most interesting discovery is that RPA corrections modify lowest-order values of the EDM enhancement factor significantly.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank M. Romalis for helpful suggestions on this paper. The work of I.S. and W.R.J. and was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY-01-39928. U.I.S. acknowledges support by Grant No. B516165 from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.