format: text

text:
# 𝐴^𝑏_{𝐹𝐵} and 𝑅_𝑏 at LEP and New Right-Handed Gauge Bosons

## I Introduction

The precision measurements at the $`Z`$ resonance continue to exhibit a deviation from the standard model in the observable $`A_{FB}^b`$ by about $`3.2`$ standard deviations Abbaneo:2001ix ; Hagiwara:fs . At the same time $`R_b`$ deviates from the standard model by only $`1.4`$ standard deviations Hagiwara:fs . It has been pointed out by Chanowitz Chanowitz:2001bv ; Chanowitz:2002cd  that the deviation in $`A_{FB}^b`$ presents a problem for the standard model whether it is genuine or not. In particular, Chanowitz argues that if the anomaly in $`A_{FB}^b`$ is attributed to systematic error and dropped from the LEP fits, then the indirect determination of the Higgs mass is in conflict with the direct limit Chanowitz:2001bv ; Chanowitz:2002cd . One possible interpretation of this result is that there is new physics associated with the $`Zb\overline{b}`$ couplings, and we explore this possibility in the context of non-universal right-handed interactions.

We adopt the following notation for the effective couplings between the $`Z`$-boson and the $`b`$ and $`t`$ quarks,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\overline{f}\gamma ^\mu \left[\left(g_{Lf}+\delta g_{Lf}\right)P_L+\left(g_{Rf}+\delta g_{Rf}\right)P_R\right]fZ_\mu ,`$ (1)
with $`P_{L,R}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$, and tree-level standard model couplings $`g_{Lf}`$ and $`g_{Rf}`$ as in the Appendix. In terms of these effective couplings, the results in Ref.Abbaneo:2001ix  suggest that new physics could be responsible for as much as $`\delta g_{Rb}0.04`$, $`\delta g_{Lb}0.004`$ . At the same time, new physics contributions to the $`\tau `$-lepton couplings are constrained to be at most at the $`0.001`$ level.

Several discussions of new physics effects regarding $`A_{FB}^b`$ or $`R_b`$ have appeared in the literature. Among them: light SUSY partners Altarelli:2001wx ; quark mixing with new fermions Bamert:1996px ; Chang:1996pf ; Chang:1998uj ; Choudhury:2001hs ; top-color Burdman:1997pf ; Yue:2000ay ; Triantaphyllou:1998ke ; top-flavor Muller:1996qs ; Malkawi:1999sa ; Malkawi:1996fs ; Lynch:2000md ; and non-universal left-right models He:2002kn . Our goal in this paper is to extend our results in Ref. He:2002kn  by computing the dominant one-loop effects to $`\delta g_{Rb}`$, and by using the LEP-II data on $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}`$ to constrain the mass of the new gauge bosons.

In the standard model the one-loop corrections to $`\delta g_{Lb}`$ that are proportional to $`M_t^2`$ are approximately $`0.006`$ Altarelli:hv . We can use this result as a benchmark for $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ from new physics, suggesting that if it is to occur at one-loop there must be an enhancement relative to the standard model electroweak corrections. This is precisely what can occur in models such as those we discussed in Ref. He:2002kn , where the coupling strength of the new right-handed interaction, $`g_R`$, is significantly larger than the $`SU(2)_L`$ coupling $`g_L`$. In this paper we calculate these corrections in a simple case and find that $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ from one-loop effects can be $`1\%`$.

Our paper is organized as follows. In Section II we describe models with additional right-handed gauge bosons that could change the value $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ significantly while respecting other phenomenological constraints. In particular we discuss several ways in which the predominant effects occur for the $`b`$ and $`t`$-quark couplings but not for the $`\tau `$-lepton couplings through $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing. In Section III we show how, even in the absence of $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing, one-loop contributions to $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ can occur at the $`1\%`$-level. In Section IV we present bounds on the mass of the new gauge bosons from the process $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}`$ at LEP-II. We state our conclusions in Section V and relegate some details to the Appendix.

## II Non-Universal Left-Right Models

The models to be discussed are variations of left-right models lrmodel ; babu  in which the right-handed interactions single out the third generation. Our basic model was introduced in Ref. He:2002kn  and we start by recalling its salient features. The gauge group of the model is $`SU(3)\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}`$ with gauge couplings $`g_3`$, $`g_L`$, $`g_R`$ and $`g`$, respectively. The model differs from other left-right models in the transformation properties of the fermions.

The first two generations are chosen to have the same transformation properties as in the standard model with $`U(1)_Y`$ replaced by $`U(1)_{BL}`$,

$`Q_L=(3,2,1)(1/3),U_R=(3,1,1)(4/3),D_R=(3,1,1)(2/3),`$
$`L_L=(1,2,1)(1),E_R=(1,1,1)(2).`$ (2)
The numbers in the first parenthesis are the $`SU(3)`$, $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`SU(2)_R`$ group representations respectively, and the number in the second parenthesis is the $`U(1)_{BL}`$ charge.

The third generation is chosen to transform differently,

$`Q_L(3)=(3,2,1)(1/3),Q_R(3)=(3,1,2)(1/3),`$
$`L_L(3)=(1,2,1)(1),L_R=(1,1,2)(1).`$ (3)
The above assignments are unusual compared with the conventional left-right model, but they enhance the difference between the right handed couplings of the first two and the third generations. This model is anomaly free.

The correct symmetry breaking and mass generation of particles can be induced by the vacuum expectation values of three Higgs representations: $`H_R=(1,1,2)(1)`$, whose non-zero vacuum expectation value (vev) $`v_R`$ breaks the group down to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$; and the two Higgs multiplets, $`H_L=(1,2,1)(1)`$ and $`\varphi =(1,2,2)(0)`$, which break the symmetry to $`SU(3)\times U(1)_{em}`$. For the purpose of symmetry breaking, only one of $`H_L`$ or $`\varphi `$ is sufficient, but both are required to give masses to all fermions. It is possible to introduce additional Higgs representations as mentioned in Ref. He:2002kn , but we will not do so in this paper.

The introduction of $`\varphi `$ causes the standard model $`W_L`$ and $`Z_o`$ to mix with the new $`W_R`$ and $`Z_R`$ gauge bosons. Here $`W_R`$ is the $`SU(2)_R`$ charged gauge boson and $`Z_R`$ is a linear combination of the neutral component of the $`SU(2)_R`$ gauge boson $`W_{3R}`$ and the $`U(1)_{BL}`$ gauge boson $`B`$. Specifically,

$`Z_o=\mathrm{cos}\theta _WW_{3L}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _RB\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\theta _RW_{3R},`$
$`Z_R=\mathrm{cos}\theta _RW_{3R}\mathrm{sin}\theta _RB,`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _R=g/g_R`$.

In the bases $`(W_L,W_R)`$ and $`(Z_o,Z_R)`$ for the massive gauge bosons, the mass matrices were given in Ref. He:2002kn  and we reproduce them here for later convenience:

$`m_{11W}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_L^2(|v_L|^2+|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2),m_{22W}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_R^2(|v_R|^2+|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2),`$
$`m_{12W}^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_Lg_RRe(v_1v_2^{}),m_{11Z}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_L^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}}(|v_L|^2+|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2),`$
$`m_{22Z}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _R}}(|v_L|^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _R+(|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2)\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _R+|v_R|^2),`$
$`m_{12Z}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_Lg_R{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _R}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}(|v_L|^2\mathrm{tan}\theta _R(|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2)\mathrm{cot}\theta _R)).`$ (5)
After diagonalization of the mass-squared matrices, the lighter and heavier mass eigenstates $`(Z,Z^{})`$ and $`(W,W^{})`$ are given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}W\hfill \\ W^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\xi _W\hfill & \mathrm{sin}\xi _W\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}\xi _W\hfill & \mathrm{cos}\xi _W\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}W_L\hfill \\ W_R\hfill \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}Z\hfill \\ Z^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\xi _Z\hfill & \mathrm{sin}\xi _Z\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}\xi _Z\hfill & \mathrm{cos}\xi _Z\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}Z_o\hfill \\ Z_R\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (18)
where $`\xi _{Z,W}`$ are the mixing angles,

$`\mathrm{tan}(2\xi _{W,Z})={\displaystyle \frac{2m_{12(W,Z)}^2}{m_{11(Z,W)}^2m_{22(Z,W)}^2}}.`$ (19)
In this model there are new interactions between the massive gauge bosons and quarks. For the charged current interaction, there are both left and right handed interactions. In the weak eigenstate basis, the charged gauge boson, $`W_L`$, couples to all generations, but the charged gauge boson, $`W_R`$, only couples to the third generation. There is a similar pattern for the neutral gauge interactions. This pattern gives rise to interactions between the fermions and the lightest physical gauge bosons that can be made to resemble the standard model couplings plus enhanced right-handed couplings for the third generation. In the mass eigenstate basis the quark-gauge-boson interactions are given by,

$`_W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{U}_L\gamma ^\mu V_{KM}D_L(\mathrm{cos}\xi _WW_\mu ^+\mathrm{sin}\xi _WW_\mu ^{}_{}{}^{}+)`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_R}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{u}_{Ri}\gamma ^\mu V_{Rti}^uV_{Rbj}^dd_{Rj}(\mathrm{sin}\xi _WW_\mu ^++\mathrm{cos}\xi _WW_\mu ^{}_{}{}^{}+)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
where $`U=(u,c,t)`$ and $`D=(d,s,b)`$. $`V_{KM}`$ is the Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing matrix and $`V_{Rij}^{u,d}`$ are unitary matrices which rotate the right handed quarks $`u_{Ri}`$ and $`d_{Ri}`$ from the weak eigenstate basis to the mass eigenstate basis. The repeated indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ are summed over three generations. For the neutral sector the couplings are,

$`_Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu (g_Vg_A\gamma _5)q(\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu \mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{})`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_Y}{2}}\mathrm{tan}\theta _R({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\overline{q}_L\gamma ^\mu q_L+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\overline{u}_{Ri}\gamma ^\mu u_{Ri}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\overline{d}_{Ri}\gamma ^\mu d_{Ri})(\mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu +\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_Y}{2}}(\mathrm{tan}\theta _R+\mathrm{cot}\theta _R)(\overline{u}_{Ri}\gamma ^\mu V_{Rti}^uV_{Rtj}^uu_{Rj}\overline{d}_{Ri}\gamma ^\mu V_{Rbi}^dV_{Rbj}^dd_{Rj})(\mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu +\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{}).`$
In this expression, $`g_Y=g\mathrm{cos}\theta _R=g_R\mathrm{sin}\theta _R`$, $`q`$ and $`q_L`$ are summed over $`u,d,c,s,t,b`$ quarks, and repeated $`i,j`$ indices are summed over the three generations. The first line contains the standard model couplings to the $`Z`$ in the limit $`\xi _Z=0`$. The first two lines also contain couplings of the two $`Z`$ bosons to quarks that arise through mixing of the neutral gauge bosons.

Similarly, the couplings to leptons are given, in the weak eigenstate basis, by:

$`_Z(lepton)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu (g_Vg_A\gamma _5)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu \mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{})`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_Y}{2}}\mathrm{tan}\theta _R(\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_L2\overline{E}_{Ri}\gamma ^\mu E_{Ri})(\mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu +\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_Y}{2}}(\mathrm{tan}\theta _R+\mathrm{cot}\theta _R)(\overline{\nu }_{R\tau }\gamma ^\mu \nu _{R\tau }\overline{\tau }_R\gamma ^\mu \tau _R)(\mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu +\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{}).`$
In this case, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_L`$ are summed over $`e,\mu ,\tau ,\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ and $`E_R`$ are summed over three generations.

The most interesting terms in Eqs. 21 and 22 occur in the third line and are potentially large if $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$ is large. In the weak interaction basis they affect only the third generation whereas in the mass eigenstate basis (as written in Eq. 21) they also give rise to flavor changing neutral currents. To satisfy the severe constraints that exist on flavor changing neutral currents we have to require that the $`V_R^d`$ and $`V_R^u`$ matrices be nearly diagonal.

In Ref. He:2002kn  we studied the case with $`\xi _Z0`$, in which $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing is responsible for the shifts in the effective right-handed coupling of the $`b`$-quark. Within this scenario, the model given above also induces large shifts in the right-handed coupling of the $`\tau `$-lepton, making it phenomenologically unacceptable. One finds for large $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$111Notice that there is a factor of 2 difference between the definitions of $`\delta g_R`$ here and in Ref. He:2002kn .,

$`\delta g_{Rb}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cot}\theta _RV_{Rbb}^dV_{Rbb}^d\xi _Z`$
$`\delta g_{Rt}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cot}\theta _RV_{Rtt}^uV_{Rtt}^u\xi _Z`$
$`\delta g_{R\tau }`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cot}\theta _R\xi _Z.`$ (23)
This last equation constrains the product $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R\xi _Z`$ to be at the $`10^3`$ level or less, whereas one would need $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R\xi _Z0.08`$ He:2002kn  to explain $`A_{FB}^b`$ through this mechanism. Nevertheless, there are several ways around this constraint. One possibility is to eliminate the relation between the $`b`$-quark and $`\tau `$-lepton couplings to the new gauge bosons. To maintain a model that is anomaly free, this is accomplished by introducing additional fermions and can be done in more than one way. Two examples are given below. A second possibility is to require the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing to be small (or zero) and in this way satisfy the constraints from $`\tau `$ leptons. As we discuss in Section III, there is a second mechanism at the loop level by which the model can induce significant shifts on $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ and not on $`\delta g_{R\tau }`$.

We now discuss two ways to modify the model so that it remains anomaly free but does not have enhanced couplings for the $`\tau `$-lepton in the case of large $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$

### II.1 Modified lepton sector

In this first example we keep the quark sector as above but make some modifications to the lepton content. The lepton sector consists of the usual three generations (all transforming as in Eq. 2) plus

$$L_R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\nu _R^{}\hfill & \\ e_R^{}\hfill & \end{array}\right)=(1,1,2)(1),e_L^{}=(1,1,1)(2).$$
(24)
Compared with the particle content of Eq. 2 and 3, the net new particles are $`e_L^{}`$ and $`E_R(3)`$. Their contributions to gauge anomaly cancel each other, and therefore the theory is anomaly free.

The new particle $`e^{}`$ can be made heavy because $`H_R`$ provides its mass. The neutral new particle $`\nu _R^{}`$ can be made heavy by introducing a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R(1,1,3)(2)`$ Higgs representation with large VEV. Therefore, at low energy one does not need to consider the effect of the new fermions.

The couplings for the usual three generations of leptons become,

$`_Z(lepton)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu (g_Vg_A\gamma _5)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu \mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{})`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_Y}{2}}\mathrm{tan}\theta _R(\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_L2\overline{E}_{Ri}\gamma ^\mu E_{Ri})(\mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu +\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{}).`$
Once again $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_L`$ are summed over $`e,\mu ,\tau ,\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ and $`E_R`$ is summed over three generations. The couplings of the new leptons are

$`_Z(lepton)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_R}{\sqrt{2}}}[\overline{\nu }_R^{}\gamma _\mu e_R^{}W_R^\mu +H.c.]`$ (26)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}(2q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)\overline{e}^{}\gamma ^\mu e^{}(\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu \mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_Y}{2}}\mathrm{tan}\theta _R(2\overline{e}^{}\gamma ^\mu e^{})(\mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu +\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_Y}{2}}(\mathrm{tan}\theta _R+\mathrm{cot}\theta _R)(\overline{\nu }_R^{}\gamma ^\mu \nu _R^{}\overline{e}_R^{}\gamma ^\mu e_R^{})(\mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu +\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{}).`$
### II.2 Modified quark sector

In this case we have three generations of leptons transforming as in Eq. 2 with couplings as in Eq. 25, and we introduce additional quarks to cancel the anomalies:

$`Q_L^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u_L^{}\hfill & \\ d_L^{}\hfill & \end{array}\right)=(3,1,2)(1/3),u_R^{}=(3,1,1)(4/3),d_R^{}=(3,1,1)(2/3).`$ (29)
The usual three generations of quarks have the same quantum numbers as in Eqs. 23 and couplings as in Eqs. 2021. Again the above particle content gives a gauge anomaly free theory, and the new particles can be made heavy because they receive their mass from the VEV of $`H_R`$. The new quarks have couplings,

$`_Z(quark)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}(2q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)\overline{q}^{}\gamma ^\mu q^{}(\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu \mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{})`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_Y}{2}}\mathrm{tan}\theta _R({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\overline{u}^{}\gamma ^\mu u^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\overline{d}^{}\gamma ^\mu d^{})(\mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu +\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_Y}{2}}(\mathrm{tan}\theta _R+\mathrm{cot}\theta _R)(\overline{u}_L^{}\gamma ^\mu u_L^{}\overline{d}_L^{}\gamma ^\mu d_L^{})(\mathrm{sin}\xi _ZZ_\mu +\mathrm{cos}\xi _ZZ_\mu ^{}).`$
### II.3 Discussion

The previous two examples illustrate how it is possible to single out the $`b`$ and $`t`$-quarks with a new right-handed interaction without affecting the $`\tau `$ lepton very much. The price paid is, of course, the introduction of additional fermions. The additional fermions can be made heavy and this allows us to ignore them at this stage, where we are interested only in the effect of potentially strong right-handed couplings of the $`b`$ and $`t`$ quarks in LEP observables. The new heavy fermions are only used to illustrate that it is possible to construct a renormalizable, anomaly free, model of this type.

The couplings of the $`b`$-quark to the new right-handed gauge bosons remain as in the original model so that, according to Eq.23, we require $`\xi _Z\mathrm{cot}\theta _R0.08`$ to explain $`A_{FB}^b`$ He:2002kn  through $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing. With $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$ large, the new physics effects mainly affect the third generation of quarks; our model is in some sense “leptophobic”.

In Ref. He:2002kn , we pointed out that the process $`bs\gamma `$ severely constrains the mixing of the charged gauge bosons $`\xi _W`$. This constraint is not in conflict with the mixing needed in the neutral sector, $`\xi _Z`$, to fit $`A_{FB}^b`$ as discussed in Ref. He:2002kn . Here we point out that there is another way to obtain Eq. 23 without affecting $`bs\gamma `$. This involves a new model in which the $`SU(2)_R`$ is replaced by a $`U(1)_R`$ with up quarks (leptons) and down quarks (leptons) in $`SU(2)_R`$ doublets carrying 1 and -1 of $`U(1)_R`$ charges, respectively. This model will also give $`\delta g_{Rb}\xi _Z\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$ as in Eq. 23, but it now arises in the context of models where (a) there are no large contributions to $`Z\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, and (b) there are no new charged gauge bosons $`W^{}`$, so that there are no constraints from $`bs\gamma `$. The contributions to the parameter $`T`$ that occur through mixing of the $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ are identical to Ref. He:2002kn  and lead to the allowed region of Figure 1 in that reference.

The most important new feature common to all the models that we have discussed is the existence of a new $`Z^{}`$ gauge boson which has enhanced couplings to top and bottom quarks (and perhaps to the $`\tau `$-lepton provided its mixing with the $`Z`$ is sufficiently small). In Section IV we explore the bounds that exist on the mass of this $`Z^{}`$ from LEP-II measurements.

## III One-loop contributions to $`\delta g_{Rb}`$

In models like the ones presented in Section II, with a new $`SU(2)_R`$ gauge interaction, there is a one-loop contribution to $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ that is present even when there is no mixing. A priori we can expect this contribution to be similar in size to the standard model contribution to $`\delta g_{Lb}`$ proportional to $`M_t^2`$. One can imagine a suppression of the form $`(M_W/M_{W_R})^2`$ with respect to the standard model $`\delta g_{Lb}`$, but this can be compensated by an enhancement $`(g_R/g_L)^2\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _R`$ in the right-handed gauge couplings.

It would be impossible to present a complete one-loop calculation for $`Zb\overline{b}`$ in the general case of Section II because we do not have sufficient information at present to determine all the parameters in those models. At the same time, we are interested in exploring the idea of a potentially strong right-handed interaction affecting the $`b`$ and $`t`$-quarks more than we are interested in the specific details of the models in Section II. For this reason, we consider a slightly simpler calculation that has the ingredients we need. First, we will only concern ourselves with the one-loop corrections that are enhanced by $`(g_R/g_L)^2`$ with respect to one-loop electroweak corrections. Second, we will require that there be no $`ZZ^{}`$ nor $`WW^{}`$ mixing in the model. Finally, we will treat all standard model fermions as massless except for the top-quark.

### III.1 Model with no tree-level mixing

To eliminate the tree-level mixing in the models of Section II in a simple manner we first require $`v_2=0`$ in Eq. 5. This immediately makes $`\xi _W=0`$ and allows us to simplify the notation by calling the remaining VEV in $`\varphi `$ $`vv_1`$. We further make $`\xi _Z=0`$ at tree-level by imposing the condition,

$$v_L=v\mathrm{cot}\theta _R$$
(31)
in Eq. 5. The parameter $`\xi _Z`$ describing the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing is the only one (beyond those already appearing in the standard model) that enters the result for the $`Zb\overline{b}`$ partial width at tree-level. As such, it is the only new parameter that needs to be defined at one-loop in our calculation of $`Zb\overline{b}`$, and we will return to this point at the end of the section.

In the simplified model, the gauge boson masses become,

$`M_W^2={\displaystyle \frac{g_L^2}{2}}\left(v_L^2+v^2\right)={\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2}{2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W}}v^2`$ , $`M_Z^2={\displaystyle \frac{M_W^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}}`$
$`M_{W_R}^2={\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2}{2}}\left(v_R^2+v^2\right)`$ , $`M_{Z_R}^2={\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_R^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _R}}+v^2\right)`$ (32)
so that $`M_{W_R}M_{Z_R}`$ for large $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$ (and equal to $`M_W^{}`$ and $`M_Z_{}`$ since in this case there is no mixing). Recalling the relation, $`g_R\mathrm{sin}\theta _R=g_L\mathrm{tan}\theta _W`$, we see that this sector of the model is characterized by the two ratios of vevs

$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_L}{v}}=\mathrm{cot}\theta _R,{\displaystyle \frac{v_R}{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{W_R}}{M_W\mathrm{tan}\theta _W}}`$ (33)
where the last expression follows for $`v_R/v>>1`$. It will also be convenient to define $`x_v=v^2/(v^2+v_R^2)`$.

In the approximation $`m_b=0`$, the Yukawa Lagrangian necessary to generate the top-quark mass is given by,

$`_Y=\kappa \left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{t}_L\overline{b}_L\hfill & \end{array}\right)\varphi \left(\begin{array}{c}t_R\hfill \\ b_R\hfill \end{array}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (37)
All the couplings in this Yukawa potential can thus be written in terms of $`m_t`$ and $`v`$ as in Eq. 60.

### III.2 Loops with right-handed gauge bosons

We are ready to calculate the one-loop corrections to $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ that are enhanced by $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _R`$. We start by considering the diagrams in Figure 1 that do not involve scalar mesons in the loop.

We work in unitary gauge with the vertices given in the Appendix, and we use dimensional regularization with the notation,

$$\frac{1}{ϵ}=\frac{2}{4n}\gamma +\mathrm{log}(4\pi )\mathrm{log}\mu ^2.$$
(38)
Relegating details for each diagram to the Appendix, we can write a simple analytical result for the sum of the diagrams in Figure 1 in the limit $`M_Z=0`$,

$$\left(\delta g_{Rb}\right)_{GB}=\frac{g_R^2}{16\pi ^2}\frac{M_t^2}{M_{W_R}^2}\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{1}{ϵ}\frac{7}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_t^2}{\mu ^2}\right)3\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_t^2}{M_{W_R}^2}\right)\right)$$
(39)
Later on we will show numerical results for $`M_Z0`$. Unlike the counterpart of this calculation in the standard model, Eq. 45, Eq. 39 is divergent. This indicates the presence of additional contributions to this process in our model.

There are two additional diagrams of the form of Figure 1 that give corrections to the right-handed coupling and that are enhanced by $`g_R^2`$. They look like the diagrams (b) and (c) with an exchange of a $`Z_R`$ (and therefore $`b`$-quarks in the intermediate lines). Both of these turn out to be finite and their finite parts precisely cancel each other out in the $`M_Z=0`$ limit.

### III.3 Loops with Scalars

We consider next the contributions from diagrams in which scalars appear in the loops, as in Figure 2.

The finite part that results from these diagrams is model dependent. In particular it depends on the details of the scalar potential, which we have not specified, and which determines the masses of the physical scalar and pseudo-scalar mesons present in the model. We are only interested here in estimating the size of the vertex corrections in Figure 1, and wish to consider the diagrams in Figure 2 only insofar as they are needed to render the result finite. For this purpose it is sufficient to identify a basis for the scalars that is orthogonal to the would-be-Goldstone bosons that give the gauge bosons their mass. We consider all physical scalars to be degenerate and to have a large mass, of order $`M_{W_R}`$. With details relegated to the Appendix, we find that the sum of these diagrams contributes the following terms that are enhanced by $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _R`$,

$`\left(\delta g_{Rb}\right)_S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{v}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_v(1x_v)\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_H^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\right)`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{M_{W_R}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_H^2}{\mu ^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\right)`$
Notice that the left-handed coupling $`\delta g_{Lb}`$ does not receive corrections from the sum of diagrams in Figure 2. With this result, Eq. 40, we find that the divergent terms precisely cancel the left-over ones from the gauge boson sector in Eq. 39 leaving us with a finite answer.

### III.4 Renormalization and $`ZZ^{}`$ Mixing

Finally we comment on the renormalization scheme used. At tree level, the $`Zb\overline{b}`$ decay width (or $`A_{FB}^b`$) takes the same value as in the standard model in the absence of $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing. We can therefore express it in terms of the input parameters $`G_F`$, the physical $`Z`$ mass and $`\alpha (M_Z)`$ as is usually done for the standard model case. It is clear from the vertices given in the Appendix, Section A.3, that none of these quantities receives one-loop corrections that are enhanced by $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _R`$. The only input parameter that receives enhanced corrections is the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing angle $`\xi _Z`$ through diagrams such as those in Figure 3. These diagrams (and a few others), have an enhancement of $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$ through the $`Z^{}t\overline{t}`$ or $`Z^{}b\overline{b}`$ coupling in the first case and through the $`W_R^+W_R^{}Z^{}`$ coupling in the second case. When the $`Z^{}`$ line is connected to $`b\overline{b}`$, a second $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$ factor is picked up leading to corrections in $`Zb\overline{b}`$ that are enhanced by $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _R`$.

In view of this, our simplest option is to adopt a renormalization scheme in which $`\xi _Z0`$ at one-loop. That is, we absorb the corrections from Figure 3 into the definition of $`\xi _Z`$. This completes the discussion of all the one-loop corrections needed to yield a finite $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ and we now turn our attention to its possible size.

### III.5 Numerical Results

Adding the results from all diagrams discussed above, we find in the $`M_Z=0`$ limit,

$$\delta g_{Rb}=\frac{g_R^2}{16\pi ^2}\frac{M_t^2}{M_{W_R}^2}\frac{1}{4}\left(6+3\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_{W_R}^2}{M_t^2}\right)+\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_H^2}{M_t^2}\right)\right).$$
(41)
To illustrate the magnitude of this correction consider the case,

$$\mathrm{cot}\theta _R=\frac{v_L}{v}\frac{v_R}{v}10$$
(42)
which implies

$$\frac{g_R^2}{M_{W_R}^2}\frac{g_L^2}{M_W^2}$$
(43)
and therefore

$$\delta g_{Rb}=\frac{\sqrt{2}G_FM_t^2}{8\pi ^2}\left(3+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_{W_R}^2}{M_t^2}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_H^2}{M_t^2}\right)\right).$$
(44)
This is to be compared with the corresponding correction to $`\delta g_{Lb}`$ in the standard model which is given by Altarelli:hv

$$\delta g_{Lb}=\frac{\sqrt{2}G_FM_t^2}{8\pi ^2}.$$
(45)
This shows that with large $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$ as in Eq. 42, $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ in our model is of the same order as the one-loop correction to $`\delta g_{Lb}`$ proportional to $`M_t^2`$ in the standard model.

In order to include kinematic effects from $`M_Z0`$, we compute the integrals over Feynman parameters numerically. It is convenient to present the result in the form

$$\delta g_{Rb}=\frac{\sqrt{2}G_FM_t^2}{8\pi ^2}F_1(M_{W_R})$$
(46)
for the case $`g_L^2/M_W^2g_R^2/M_{W_R}^2`$. We show $`F_1`$ in Figure 4 a. In the more general case it is convenient to write

$$\delta g_{Rb}=\frac{g_R^2}{32\pi ^2}F_2(M_{W_R})$$
(47)
and we show $`F_2`$ in Figure 4 b.

These results indicate that a contribution to $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ at the $`\%`$ level is possible in models with $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R10`$.

## IV Constraints from LEP-II

The mass of additional $`Z^{}`$ gauge bosons that occur in many models is constrained to be larger than about 500 GeV Hagiwara:fs . These bounds arise mostly from processes involving four first or second generation fermions and do not apply to non-universal $`Z^{}`$ gauge bosons that couple strongly to third generation fermions but very weakly to first and second generation fermions. Roughly speaking, when a $`Z^{}`$ like this is exchanged in a process such as $`b\overline{b}b\overline{b}`$ it generates an amplitude of order electroweak strength times $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _R`$. For the models that we have in mind $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R10`$ this can be a very significant enhancement. On the other hand when the same $`Z^{}`$ is exchanged between fermions of the first two generations, in processes such as $`u\overline{u}u\overline{u}`$, it generates an amplitude of electroweak strength times $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _R`$ which is drastically suppressed.

The best bounds one can have at present on such a $`Z^{}`$ come from a process in which a first or second generation fermion pair produces a $`b\overline{b}`$ pair. Since $`b\overline{b}`$ production in hadron colliders is mostly a strong interaction process, the most promising reaction to constrain our $`Z^{}`$ is $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}`$ studied at LEP-II. Notice that for a process such as this one, the exchange of a $`Z^{}`$ results in a correction of electroweak strength, suppressed only by the mass of the $`Z^{}`$. The cross-section for this process is largely independent of the value of $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$. At leading order, $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$ only appears through the width of the $`Z^{}`$ that one must include in the propagator for $`s`$-channel exchange.

In this Section we use the LEP-II data on $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}`$ and $`e^+e^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ to constrain the mass of these non-universal $`Z^{}`$ gauge bosons. The calculation is performed numerically using the program COMPHEP Pukhov:1999gg  with the following strategy. We use COMPHEP to calculate tree level cross-sections for $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$ at LEP-II energy both for the standard model and for the standard model plus the $`Z^{}`$ of Section II. We then use these cross-sections to construct the ratios $`R_b/(R_b)_{SMtree}`$ and similarly for $`A_{FB}^b`$. We then compare these ratios to the corresponding ratios $`(R_b)_{EXP}/(R_b)_{SM}`$ where $`(R_b)_{EXP}`$ are the averages of LEP-II measurements as reported in Ref. Abbaneo:2001ix  and $`(R_b)_{SM}`$ is the full standard model expectation computed with ZFITTER as reported in Table 8.7 of Ref. Abbaneo:2001ix . Schematically for the cross-section,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{Theory}}{\sigma _{SM}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{SMtree}+\sigma _{SMloop}+\sigma _Z^{}}{\sigma _{SMtree}+\sigma _{SMloop}}}`$ (48)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{SMtree}+\sigma _Z^{}}{\sigma _{SMtree}}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _Z^{}}{\sigma _{SMtree}}}.`$
In this way the error that results from our using only the tree-level result for the standard model prediction from COMPHEP becomes higher order in our comparison with data.

In models with $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing, we need to remove the enhanced coupling $`Z^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ as discussed in the previous section. In that case the only relevant LEP-II process to bound the $`Z^{}`$ is $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}`$. There are two observables that can be used: $`R_b`$ and $`A_{FB}^b`$. In Figure 5 we show $`R_b/(R_b)_{SM}`$ for different values of $`M_Z^{}`$. In this figure we have assumed no mixing ($`\xi _Z=0`$) and used $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R=15`$ 222recall that the dependence of this amplitude on $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$ is only through the width of the $`Z^{}`$. The LEP-II data points are shown with their $`1`$-$`\sigma `$ and $`3`$-$`\sigma `$ error bars. It is evident already from this figure that $`M_Z^{}`$ will be constrained to be larger than about 500 GeV.

In Figure 6 we show similar results for the forward-backward asymmetry. It is evident from this figure that $`A_{FB}^b`$ does not constrain the $`Z^{}`$ as much as $`R_b`$ does due to its larger experimental error (in this case we only show the $`1`$-$`\sigma `$ error-bars).

As discussed in Section II, it is possible to allow $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing in models where the couplings to $`\tau ^\pm `$ are not enhanced. We illustrate the effect of including this mixing in Figure 7. For each value of $`M_Z^{}`$, we have allowed $`\xi _Z`$ to vary between zero and $`\xi _Z=\pm 0.08/\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$, the value required to fit $`A_{FB}^b`$ from LEP-I. We see that mixing is a small effect on $`R_b`$ at LEP-II energies.

In Figure 8 we illustrate the effect of varying $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$ and thus the $`Z^{}`$ width for $`M_Z^{}=400`$ GeV. We use values $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R=10,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}15}`$ and also show the result of approximating the $`Z^{}`$ exchange with a contact interaction. The results illustrate that below the resonance, the bound on the $`Z^{}`$ mass becomes slightly tighter for narrower resonances (smaller $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$). In our model, the interference between $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ exchange amplitudes is always constructive in the energy region between the two resonances. The figure also illustrates that for a $`Z^{}`$ as light as 400 GeV, a contact interaction is a reasonable approximation for effects at LEP-II energies. We shall use this later when comparing our bounds with those extracted by the LEP-II analysis group for contact interactions.

To quantify the bounds on the $`Z^{}`$ mass we construct a $`\chi ^2`$ for a fit to LEP-II data with our model. In Figure 9 we present this result after subtracting the $`\chi ^2`$ from a standard model fit (using the ZFITTER results quoted in Ref. Abbaneo:2001ix ). Once again we show the three cases $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R=10,15`$ and a contact interaction approximation. It is important to notice, for example in Figure 5, that the LEP-II data are consistently below the standard model prediction. This, combined with the fact that the interference between the $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ amplitudes in our model is always constructive in this energy region, implies that the standard model is always a better fit than any of our $`Z^{}`$ models. If we require that the new model not deviate from the standard model by 2(3) standard deviations, we can place the bounds $`M_Z^{}>700(540)`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R=15`$.

Given that the LEP-II data is consistently below the standard model expectation, it is conceivable that there is some common systematic error not accounted for in the quoted error bars. To account for this possibility, we naively rescale the data by a common factor in such a way as to minimize the $`\chi ^2`$ of the standard model fit. Doing this results in lower bounds on the $`Z^{}`$ mass. For example, for $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R=10`$ the 2(3) sigma bounds move from 780 (595) GeV to 530 (460) GeV.

We can also use the contact interaction approximation to bound the $`Z^{}`$ mass. The correspondence to Table 8.12 of Ref.Abbaneo:2001ix  is (for no mixing),

$$M_Z^{}=\sqrt{\eta }\frac{g_L\mathrm{tan}\theta _W}{4\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(49)
Our model of Section II generates both a $`LR`$ contact interaction with $`\eta _{LR}=1`$ and a $`RR`$ contact interaction with $`\eta _{RR}=2`$. For constructive interference we thus infer the 95% confidence level bounds $`M_Z^{}>544`$ GeV from the $`RR`$ interaction and $`M_Z^{}>275`$ GeV from the $`LR`$ interaction.

From all this we conclude that in all cases the $`Z^{}`$ is already restricted to be heavier than about $`500`$ GeV by LEP-II data.

Finally, since models without mixing also allow large couplings to the $`\tau `$-lepton, we show in Figure 10 the cross-section for $`e^+e^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ at LEP-II. A calculation of the $`\chi ^2`$ for the fit in this case indicates that the bounds on the $`Z^{}`$ mass are slightly higher than those obtained from studying $`R_b`$, but not significantly so.

## V Conclusions

Motivated by the 3-$`\sigma `$ discrepancy between the standard model prediction and the measured forward-backward asymmetry $`A_{FB}^b`$ at the $`Z`$ peak we have studied models which can generate a sufficiently large $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ through new non-universal right-handed gauge interactions.

One possible mechanism to generate this $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ is the mixing of the $`Z`$ with a $`Z^{}`$. We had already discussed a model like this in Ref. He:2002kn . In this paper we have illustrated several variations on that model that are also renormalizable and anomaly free. At the cost of introducing additional fermions, we showed two models that produce the required $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ while satisfying the LEP constraints on $`\delta g_{R\tau }`$. We have also indicated how it is possible to modify these models so that they are not constrained by $`bs\gamma `$.

We have identified a second mechanism to generate $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ even in cases with no $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing. This occurs in models with an $`SU(2)_R`$ triplet of gauge bosons at one-loop, and can give rise to $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ at the $`1\%`$ level. By itself, this mechanism is not sufficient to explain the full $`\delta g_{Rb}0.04`$ favored by the data. The simple model used to illustrate this effect, provides an example of a renormalizable model that can give rise to relatively large new interactions involving only the $`b`$ and $`t`$ quarks while respecting low energy constraints.

Finally we have used the LEP-II data for the process $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}`$ to place bounds on the mass of the $`Z^{}`$ in our models. This is a $`Z^{}`$ that couples weakly (by a factor $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _R1/10`$ weaker than standard electroweak couplings) to fermions of the first two generations. For this reason, standard bounds on $`Z^{}`$ gauge bosons do not apply. We find that the LEP-II data constrains it to be heavier than about $`500`$ GeV in all cases.

The contribution of the new gauge bosons in our models to the process $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}`$, is of electroweak strength because the enhancement in the $`Z^{}b\overline{b}`$ coupling is compensated by the suppression in the $`Z^{}e^+e^{}`$ coupling. In this way, our model is an example of a kind of new interactions that will only show their full strength in processes involving four third generation fermions. It may be possible for the LHC to study certain processes of this type, and we are currently investigating this possibility.

Acknowledgments  The work of X.G.H. was supported in part by National Science Council under grants NSC 91-2112-M-002-042, and in part by the Ministry of Education Academic Excellence Project 89-N-FA01-1-4-3. The work of G.V. was supported in part by DOE under contract number DE-FG02-01ER41155.

## Appendix A Vertices and One-Loop Results

### A.1 Basic conventions

The general conventions adopted are:

$`g_{Lt}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,g_{Rt}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,`$
$`g_{Lb}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,g_{Rb}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\gamma _\mu \left((g_{Lb}+\delta g_{Lb})P_L+(g_{Rb}+\delta g_{Rb})P_R\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{4n}}\gamma +\mathrm{log}(4\pi )\mathrm{log}\mu ^2`$ (50)
### A.2 Scalar Sector

We start with the following parameterization for the scalars,

$`H_L=\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{h_Li\varphi _L}{\sqrt{2}}+v_L\\ \varphi _L^{}\end{array}\right),H_R=\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{h_Ri\varphi _R}{\sqrt{2}}+v_R\\ \varphi _R^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (55)
$`\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{h_1i\varphi _1^0}{\sqrt{2}}+v_1& \varphi _1^+\\ \varphi _2^{}& \frac{h_2i\varphi _2^0}{\sqrt{2}}+v_2\end{array}\right)`$ (58)
This parameterization contains both the would-be Goldstone-bosons that give mass to the $`W,Z,W_R,Z_R`$ and the remaining physical scalar (or pseudo-scalar) particles.

Since we do not specify a scalar potential, we cannot identify the scalar mass eigenstates. Rather we work with a basis of physical scalars chosen to be orthogonal to the would-be Goldstone-bosons, under the simplifying assumption that they all have the same large mass. The physical scalars defined this way are,

$`H_1^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{v^2+v_L^2}}}(v\varphi _L^\pm +v_L\varphi _2^\pm )`$
$`H_2^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{v^2+v_R^2}}}(v\varphi _R^\pm +v_R\varphi _1^\pm )`$
$`H_2^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\sqrt{1+x^2}}}(\mathrm{sin}\theta _R\varphi _L^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\varphi _R^0+\mathrm{cos}\theta _R\varphi _1^0)`$
$`H_1^0`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _2^0`$ (59)
with $`x=v_R/(v\mathrm{cos}\theta _R)`$ and with $`H_{1,2}^0`$ being neutral pseudo-scalars. The only neutral scalar that enters the calculation is the original $`h_2`$. Working with this basis we can identify the divergent contributions arising from diagrams with scalar exchange (they are independent of scalar masses). The finite contributions that depend on the masses of the different scalars can only be obtained after fixing all their masses.

### A.3 Feynman Rules

In unitary gauge, the vertices $`\gamma W_L^+W_L^{}`$, $`\gamma \gamma W_L^+W_L^{}`$, $`\gamma ZW_L^+W_L^{}`$, $`ZW_L^+W_L^{}`$ and $`ZZW_L^+W_L^{}`$ are as in the standard model. The analogous vertices with $`W_R^\pm `$ taking the place of $`W_L^\pm `$ can be obtained by multiplying the corresponding vertex with $`W_L^\pm `$ by a factor of $`(\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W)`$ for each $`Z`$. In particular, these vertices are not enhanced by $`g_R/g_L`$. There are no “mixed” vertices with one $`W_L`$ and one $`W_R`$. For vertices involving a $`Z_R`$, the $`Z_RW_R^+W_R^{}`$ vertex is given by $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _W\mathrm{cot}\theta _R/\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$ times the corresponding vertex for $`ZW_L^+W_L^{}`$ and is, therefore, enhanced with respect to the latter by a factor of $`\mathrm{cot}\theta _R`$. Finally the $`ZZ_RW_R^+W_R^{}`$ vertex can be obtained by multiplying the $`ZZW_L^+W_L^{}`$ vertex by $`\mathrm{tan}^3\theta _W\mathrm{cot}\theta _R/\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$.

The Feynman rules for couplings of gauge bosons to fermions are already given in Eqs. 20 and 21. The Feynman rules involving the scalars which couple to top and bottom proportionally to the top-quark mass can be extracted from the Yukawa Lagrangian:

$`_Y`$ $`=`$ $`m_t[\overline{t}t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}v}}(\overline{t}th_1+\overline{b}bh_2){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}v}}(\overline{t}\gamma _5t\varphi _1^0+\overline{b}\gamma _5b\varphi _2^0)`$ (60)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}(\overline{b}_Lt_R\varphi _2^{}+\overline{b}_Rt_L\varphi _1^{}+\overline{t}_Lb_R\varphi _1^++\overline{t}_Rb_L\varphi _2^+)]`$
In terms of the physical scalars defined as in Eq. 59 the couplings we need become,

$`_Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{v}}[\mathrm{cos}\theta _R(\overline{b}P_RtH_1^{}+\overline{t}P_LbH_1^+)+{\displaystyle \frac{v_R}{\sqrt{v_R^2+v^2}}}(\overline{b}P_LtH_2^{}+\overline{t}P_RbH_2^+)`$ (61)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{b}(h_2iH_1^0\gamma _5)b].`$
The vertices of the form $`ZHH`$ are obtained from the Lagrangian

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\left(2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W{\displaystyle \frac{v_R^2}{v^2+v_R^2}}\right)Z^\mu \left(H_2^{}_\mu H_2^+H_2^+_\mu H_2^{}\right)`$ (62)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ig_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _WZ^\mu \left(H_1^{}_\mu H_1^+H_1^+_\mu H_1^{}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}Z^\mu \left(h_2_\mu H_1^0H_1^0_\mu h_2\right).`$
Finally, the vertices of the form $`ZWH`$ can be read from the Lagrangian

$$=\frac{g_R^2}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _R}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W}\frac{vv_R}{\sqrt{v^2+v_R^2}}Z^\mu W_{R\mu }^\pm H_2^{}$$
(63)
### A.4 Loops involving Gauge Bosons

Here we present results for the individual diagrams in Figure 1.

### Diagram 1 a

To check our results we first evaluate this diagram for the case of the Standard Model in Unitary Gauge. In this case the internal wavy lines are $`W^+`$ and $`W^{}`$ and one finds,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{g^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}{16\pi ^2}}`$ (64)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^4}{12M_W^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{4M_Z^2}{3M_W^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2M_Z^2}{4M_W^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3M_t^2}{2M_W^2}}\right)+fa_L\right)P_L`$
Notice that the first two divergent terms in Eq. 64 that are not proportional to $`M_t^2`$ are not included in the finite quantity $`\delta g_{Lb}`$ of Eq.45. These divergent terms cancel against other contributions from the renormalization of $`G_F`$, $`M_Z`$ and $`\alpha `$ when one calculates observables such as the partial $`Z`$ width Dawson:1994fa . It is possible to obtain a simple expression for the finite part $`fa_L`$ in the limit $`M_W^2/M_t^2<<1`$. It is given by,

$$fa_L\frac{M_t^2}{8M_W^2}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}\left(2\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_t^2}{M_Z^2}\right)3\right)+12\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_t^2}{M_Z^2}\right)10\right)$$
(65)
For our model, the terms that are enhanced by $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _R`$ are obtained when the internal wavy lines are $`W_R^+`$ and $`W_R^{}`$, resulting in,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}{16\pi ^2}}`$ (66)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^4}{12M_{W_R}^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{4M_Z^2}{3M_{W_R}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2M_Z^2}{4M_{W_R}^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3M_t^2}{2M_{W_R}^2}}\right)+fa_R\right)P_R`$
The first two divergent terms in this expression, the ones not proportional to $`M_t^2`$, do not contribute to the vertex correction $`\delta g_{Rb}`$ that we are computing because they are not enhanced by $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _R`$. Although they appear to be proportional to $`g_R^2`$, they really are not when one considers the relations from Eq. 32. The finite part can be calculated numerically (we only present these results for the sum of all diagrams). For example, for $`M_{W_R}=500`$ GeV, we find $`fa_R=1.32`$ with a renormalization scale $`\mu =M_Z`$.

It is possible to present approximate analytical results by taking $`M_Z=0`$ in the integrals. Doing so and expanding the resulting expression in powers of $`M_t^2/M_{W_R}^2`$ we find,

$$i\frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}\frac{g_R^2}{16\pi ^2}(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)\left[\frac{3}{2}\frac{M_t^2}{M_{W_R}^2}\frac{1}{ϵ}+\frac{3}{2}+\frac{M_t^2}{M_{W_R}^2}\left(\frac{11}{4}\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_{W_R}^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right)\right]$$
(67)
### Diagram 1 b

Once again we first evaluate Diagram b in Figure 1 for the Standard Model in unitary gauge. In that case the internal wavy line is a charged $`W`$ and the intermediate state quarks are top. The result can be written in the limit $`M_W^2/M_t^2<<1`$ as,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{g^2|V_{tb}|^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{M_W^2}}(({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{M_Z^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})g_{Lt}`$ (68)
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{M_Z^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}})g_{Rt})P_L.`$
For our model the only terms enhanced by $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _R`$ are obtained with the intermediate wavy line representing a $`W_R^\pm `$ and the intermediate state quark being top. As before, we present an approximate analytical result obtained by setting $`M_Z=0`$ in the loop integrals and expanding the resulting expression in powers of $`M_t^2/M_{W_R}^2`$. This yields,

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2}{16\pi ^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{M_{W_R}^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{g_{Lt}}{4}}g_{Rt}){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}g_{Rt}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{M_{W_R}^2}}[(\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{\mu ^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})g_{Rt}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)+3\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{M_{W_R}^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}})g_{Lt}]\}`$ (69)
We only consider the case with $`M_Z0`$ numerically and include it in the sum of all diagrams in Figure 4.

### Diagram 1 c

Finally we evaluate the wave-function renormalization diagrams of Figure 1 c. Once again we begin by considering the Standard Model in unitary gauge. For this diagram we can present an exact analytical result,

$`1Z_b^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}P_L({\displaystyle \frac{3M_t^2}{4M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{3M_t^2}{4M_W^2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)`$ (70)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3M_t^2M_W^2}{4(M_t^2M_W^2)^2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_W^2}{M_t^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{6M_W^4+5M_t^2M_W^25M_t^4}{8M_W^2(M_t^2M_W^2)}})`$
Similarly, for the case of our model, the terms that are enhanced by $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta _R`$ are obtained from the exchange of charged $`W_R^\pm `$ gauge bosons and we find,

$`1Z_b^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2}{16\pi ^2}}P_R({\displaystyle \frac{3M_t^2}{4M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{3M_t^2}{4M_W^2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)`$ (71)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3M_t^2M_W^2}{4(M_t^2M_W^2)^2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_W^2}{M_t^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{6M_W^4+5M_t^2M_W^25M_t^4}{8M_W^2(M_t^2M_W^2)}})`$
As a check of our calculation we have evaluated the corresponding expressions for the Standard Model in unitary gauge. From these we can obtain, by adding the three contributions, the vertex correction terms $`\delta g_{Lb}`$ proportional to $`M_t^2`$. This result, Eq. 45, is finite and in agreement with the known result Altarelli:hv .

### A.5 Loops with Scalar Mesons

We now turn our attention to the diagrams in Figure 2. As described in the main text we use the basis of Eq. 59 assuming all scalars to be degenerate and to have a large mass.

### Diagram 2 a

This type of diagram involves one gauge boson and one physical charged scalar in the loop. There is only a contribution to the right-handed coupling involving the $`W_R^\pm H_2^{}`$ intermediate state. Our result in the limit where the Higgs masses are much larger than other masses is:

$$i\frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left(\frac{m_t}{v}\right)^2\left(\frac{1}{ϵ}+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_H^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\right)x_v(1x_v)P_R$$
(72)
### Diagram 2 b

This type of diagram involves two scalars in the intermediate state. The left-handed coupling receives contributions from charged $`H_1`$ scalars as well as from a diagram with one neutral $`H_1^0`$ pseudo-scalar and one $`h_2`$ neutral scalar. The right-handed coupling receives contributions from the same diagram with neutral scalars as well as from the diagram with charged $`H_2`$ scalars.

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{v}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_H^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)\right)`$
$`\left[\left(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _Wx_v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_v^2\right)P_R+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _R}{2}}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _W\right)P_L\right]`$ (73)
### Diagram 2 c

This type of diagram involves the exchange of a charged $`H_1`$ or of a neutral $`H_1^0`$ or $`H_2`$ scalars for the left-handed coupling as well as exchanges of a charged $`H_2`$ scalar or a neutral $`A_1^0`$ or $`H_2`$ scalars for the right-handed coupling.

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{v}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_H^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)\right)`$
$`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)x_v\right)P_R+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(12\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _R)\right)P_L\right]`$ (74)
### Diagram 2 d

This diagram represents $`b`$ wave-function renormalization through scalar loops. Once again, for the left-handed coupling one obtains contributions from exchanging a charged $`H_1`$ and neutral $`H_1^0`$ and $`H_2`$, whereas for the right-handed coupling the contributions arise through exchange of charged $`H_2`$ and neutral $`H_1^0`$ and $`H_2`$ scalars.

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{v}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_H^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)\right)`$
$`[({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _Wx_v)P_R+\left((1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _R)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)P_L\right]`$ (75)


text:
# Higher Heegner points on elliptic curves over function fields

## 1 Introduction

Heegner points are a way of constructing explicit points of infinite order on modular elliptic curves, and have been used to great effect over number fields. More recently, people have produced analogous constructions on elliptic curves over global function fields. The first such construction is due to M.L. Brown , but there seem to be a number of errors in his paper. H.-G. Rück and U. Tipp  have proved an analogue of the celebrated Gross-Zagier formula in a special case, and I. Longhi  and A. Pál  have (independently) constructed Heegner points of infinite order on elliptic curves, using the $`p`$-adic approach due to M. Bertolini and H. Darmon. D. Ulmer has announced a more general version of the Gross-Zagier formula, which, combined with his non-vanishing result for $`L`$-functions, yields the full Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture for elliptic curves over function fields when their analytic rank is $`1`$ and the characteristic is $`p>3`$. For a nice survey of all this, see .

In this paper we prove a function field version of a result of C. Cornut  and V. Vatsal  on higher Heegner points on modular elliptic curves, which had been conjectured by B. Mazur . Their result has some important consequences, including J. Nekovář’s celebrated results concerning the parity of ranks of Selmer groups. See  for a discussion.

Cornut actually found two proofs, the second of which  uses a known case of the André-Oort conjecture due to B. Moonen, and is much simpler. We use the function field analogue of a special case of the André-Oort Conjecture, proved in , and then follow closely Cornut’s second proof.

Let $`k`$ be a global function field with field of constants $`𝔽_q`$, where $`q`$ is a power of the odd prime $`p`$. Let $`E`$ be an elliptic curve defined over $`k`$ with non-constant $`j`$-invariant (we say $`E`$ is non-isotrivial). Then, replacing $`k`$ by a finite extension if necessary, we can choose a place $`\mathrm{}`$ of $`k`$ such that $`E`$ has multiplicative reduction at $`\mathrm{}`$. Let $`k_{\mathrm{}}`$ denote the completion of $`k`$ at $`\mathrm{}`$, and set $`_{\mathrm{}}=\widehat{\overline{k}}_{\mathrm{}}`$ the completion of an algebraic closure of $`k_{\mathrm{}}`$. Furthermore, we let $`A`$ be the ring of functions in $`k`$ regular outside $`\mathrm{}`$. It is a Dedekind domain with finite class number $`h=|\mathrm{Pic}(A)|=\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{})h_k`$, where $`h_k=|\mathrm{Pic}^0(k)|`$ denotes the class number of $`k`$. By a Drinfeld module we will always mean a Drinfeld $`A`$-module of rank 2, defined over a subfield of $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ (in particular, we deal only with the case of “generic” characteristic).

The conductor of $`E`$ may be written as $`𝔫\mathrm{}`$, where $`𝔫`$ is an ideal in $`A`$. Then, by the work of V.G. Drinfeld (and A. Weil, A. Grothendieck, H. Jacquet-R.P. Langlands, P. Deligne and Y.G. Zarhin) we have a modular parametrization

$$\pi :X_0(𝔫)E,$$
(1.1)
defined over $`k`$, where $`X_0(𝔫)`$ is the Drinfeld modular curve parametrizing isomorphism classes of pairs $`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$ of Drinfeld modules linked by a cyclic isogeny of degree $`𝔫`$.

Now let $`K`$ be an imaginary quadratic extension of $`k`$ (i.e. such that $`\mathrm{}`$ does not split in $`K/k`$) with the property that all primes dividing $`𝔫`$ split in $`K`$ (this is known as the Heegner hypothesis). There exist infinitely many such fields. Denote by $`𝒪_K`$ the integral closure of $`A`$ in $`K`$, it contains an ideal $`𝒩`$ such that $`𝒪_K/𝒩A/𝔫`$. Let $`𝔭A`$ be a prime not dividing $`𝔫`$, and let $`𝒪_n=A+𝔭^n𝒪_K`$ be the order of conductor $`𝔭^n`$ in $`𝒪_K`$. We set $`𝒩_n=𝒩𝒪_n`$, so $`𝒪_n/𝒩_nA/𝔫`$. Then $`𝒪_n`$ and $`𝒩_n^1`$, viewed as rank 2 lattices in $`_{\mathrm{}}`$, correspond to a pair of Drinfeld modules $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^{𝒪_n},\mathrm{\Phi }^{𝒩_n^1})`$, linked by a cyclic isogeny of degree $`𝔫`$. Hence they define a Heegner point $`x_nX_0(𝔫)`$, which is in fact defined over the ring class field $`K[𝔭^n]`$ of $`𝒪_n`$, as $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{𝒪_n})\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{𝒩_n^1})𝒪_n`$.

We now set $`K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]=_{n1}K[𝔭^n]`$. Then $`G=\mathrm{Gal}(K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]/K)_p^{\mathrm{}}\times G_0`$, where $`_p^{\mathrm{}}`$ denotes the product of countably many copies of $`_p`$ ($`p`$ being the characteristic of $`k`$), and $`G_0=G_{tors}`$ is a finite group (Proposition 2.1). This is in marked contrast to the number field case, where the analogue of $`G`$ contains only one copy of $`_p`$, and where $`p`$ plays the role of $`𝔭`$, and may be chosen. $`G_0`$ corresponds to a subfield $`H[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{Gal}(H[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]/K)_p^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Denote by

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{G_0}:E(K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}])E(H[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]);x\underset{\sigma G_0}{}x^\sigma $$

the $`G_0`$-trace on $`E`$. We define the Heegner point $`y_n=\mathrm{Tr}_{G_0}(\pi (x_n))E(H[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}])`$. Our aim is to prove

###### Theorem 1

Suppose $`k=𝔽_q(T)`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{})=1`$. Let $`I`$ be an infinite subset. Then the group generated by $`\{y_n|nI\}`$ in $`E(H[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}])`$ has infinite rank.

Remark. We have tried to avoid the hypothesis on $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ as far as possible in this paper. It is used twice, firstly in the proof of Proposition 4.2 (but which should still hold for general $`k`$), and at the very end of the proof of Theorem 1, where we invoke an analogue of the André-Oort conjecture which is currently only known in this case. Once a more general case of this conjecture has been proved \- which is the object of current efforts - Theorem 1 should become true for general $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$.

The layout of this paper is as follows. In §2 we describe the group $`\mathrm{Gal}(K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]/K)`$, and show that $`E(K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}])`$ has finite torsion. In §3 we describe the map (1.1) in more detail, and construct a family of new modular parametrizations in §4 by means of degeneracy maps between Drinfeld modular curves. Then in §5 we describe a canonical factorization of cyclic isogenies between CM Drinfeld modules, which we will use in §6 to characterize the geometric action of Galois on Heegner points. Finally, we deduce Theorem 1 from the André-Oort conjecture in §7.

Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank Ernst-Ulrich Gekeler for help with Proposition 4.2, and Christophe Cornut for showing him that the $`y_n`$’s actually generate a group of infinite rank.

## 2 The class field tower

###### Proposition 2.1

$`G=\mathrm{Gal}(K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]/K)_p^{\mathrm{}}\times G_0`$, where $`G_0=G_{tors}`$ is finite.

Proof. First, notice that

$$G=\mathrm{Gal}(K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]/K)=\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{lim}\mathrm{Gal}(K[𝔭^n]/K)\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{lim}\mathrm{Pic}(𝒪_n).$$
(2.2)
Secondly, we have an exact sequence (see e.g. , §I.12)

$$1𝒪_K^{}/𝒪_n^{}(𝒪_K/𝔭^n𝒪_K)^{}/(𝒪_n/𝔭^n𝒪_K)^{}\mathrm{Pic}(𝒪_n)\mathrm{Pic}(𝒪_K)1.$$

As $`𝒪_K^{}/𝒪_n^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{Pic}(𝒪_K)`$ are bounded, it remains to examine the behavior of $`(𝒪_K/𝔭^n𝒪_K)^{}/(𝒪_n/𝔭^n𝒪_K)^{}`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. We insert it into the following diagram, with exact rows and columns:

Notice that $`𝔭^n𝒪_K=𝔭^n𝒪_n`$. As $`(𝒪_K/𝔭𝒪_K)^{}/(𝒪_n/𝔭𝒪_n)^{}`$ is bounded, we are lead to studying the (multiplicative) group $`H_n:=(1+𝔭𝒪_K)/(1+𝔭𝒪_n)`$.

By computing the cardinality of various groups in the diagram, one finds that $`H_n`$ is a $`p`$-group, of order $`|𝔭|^{n1}`$. Let $`x1+𝔭𝒪_K`$, we will examine its order in $`H_n`$. Let $`s=\mathrm{log}_p(n+1)`$, then we find that $`x^{p^s}1+𝔭^{n+1}𝒪_K1+𝔭𝒪_n`$. It follows that $`H_n`$ is annihilated by $`p^s`$, hence the number of generators of $`H_n`$ is at least $`\mathrm{log}_p(|𝔭|)(n1)/\mathrm{log}_p(n+1)\mathrm{}`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. On the other hand, suppose the order of $`x`$ in $`H_n`$ is bounded independently of $`n`$, say $`x^{p^r}1+𝔭𝒪_n`$ for all $`n`$. But then $`x^{p^r}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}(1+𝔭𝒪_n)A`$, and so $`xA`$ to begin with (recall that $`K=k(\sqrt{D})`$ for some square-free $`DA`$, and that $`p`$ is odd), so $`xA(1+𝔭𝒪_K)1+𝔭𝒪_n`$. We have shown that $`\underset{}{lim}H_n_p^{\mathrm{}}`$ and the proposition now follows.

$`\mathrm{}`$

The following result will be crucial.

###### Lemma 2.3

$`E_{tors}(K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}])`$ is finite.

Proof. Let $`𝔩𝔭𝔫`$ be a prime of $`k`$ which is inert and principal in $`K`$. Then $`E`$ has good reduction at $`𝔩`$, and $`𝔩`$ splits completely in $`K[𝔭^n]`$, hence the residue field of $`K[𝔭^n]`$ at $`𝔩`$ is just $`𝔽_𝔩=𝒪_K/𝔩`$ for every $`n0`$. It follows that reduction mod $`𝔩`$ induces an injection of the prime-to-$`p`$ part of $`E_{tors}(K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}])`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{E}(𝔽_𝔩)`$, which is finite.

Let $`K^,`$ denote the separable closure of $`K`$. We complete the proof by showing that $`E(K^,)E[p^{\mathrm{}}]`$ is finite, for any non-isotrivial elliptic curve $`E/K`$. Indeed, if $`E[p^n]E(K)`$, then $`j=j(E)`$ is a $`p^n`$th power in $`K`$, as can be seen by factoring the multiplication by $`p^n`$-map into $`[p^n]=fg`$, with $`\mathrm{ker}(g)=E[p^n]`$ and $`f`$ the $`p^n`$th power Frobenius. Now, let $`n`$ be such that $`j`$ is not a $`p^n`$th power in $`K`$. Then $`j`$ is a $`p^n`$th power in $`K^{}=K(E[p^n])`$, and it follows that $`K^{}/K`$ is not separable. Alternatively, one may apply a general criterion of J.F. Voloch for abelian varieties (, §4).

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Modular parametrizations

As the literature already contains excellent expositions of the theory of Drinfeld modular curves and the parametrization (1.1), such as , , , and  (§1.4 and §1.5), we will not attempt a detailed account. Instead, we only recall here some of the results and notations that we will need, and refer the reader to  for the details.

Every projective $`A`$-module of rank 2 is isomorphic to $`Y_𝔞=A\times 𝔞k^2`$ for an ideal $`𝔞A`$, so in particular their isomorphism classes correspond to $`\mathrm{Pic}(A)`$. The group $`\mathrm{GL}_2(k)`$ acts on $`k^2`$ from the right. Let $`x=[𝔞]\mathrm{Pic}(A)`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x=\mathrm{Stab}_{\mathrm{GL}_2(k)}(Y_𝔞)`$ be the stabilizer of $`Y_𝔞`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_{\mathrm{}}k_{\mathrm{}}`$ the Drinfeld upper half-plane, and choose $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We map $`k^2`$ into $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by sending $`(a,b)`$ to $`az+b`$. Then the image of any projective rank 2 $`A`$-module under this map is a lattice in $`_{\mathrm{}}`$, i.e. a discrete projective $`A`$-submodule of $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ of rank 2. $`\mathrm{GL}_2(k)`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from the left by fractional linear transformations, and on the lattices this action corresponds to the right action on $`k^2`$.

Let $`M_0(𝔫)`$ be the coarse moduli scheme for the moduli problem “pairs of Drinfeld modules linked by a cyclic isogeny of degree $`𝔫`$”. This is equivalent to the problem “pairs of lattices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1_𝔫\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$”, where the $`_𝔫`$ notation means that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1A/𝔫`$ as $`A`$-modules. We denote by $`Y_0(𝔫)=M_0(𝔫)\times k`$ the base extension to $`k`$, and by $`X_0(𝔫)`$ the smooth projective model of $`Y_0(𝔫)`$, which may be obtained from $`Y_0(𝔫)`$ by including finitely many cusps. The curve $`X_0(𝔫)`$ has $`h=|\mathrm{Pic}(A)|`$ irreducible components, each defined over the Hilbert class field $`H`$ of $`(k,A)`$, and which we denote by $`X_x`$ for $`x=[𝔞]\mathrm{Pic}(A)`$. The group $`\mathrm{Gal}(H/k)`$ permutes the components by $`(𝔞,H/k)X_{[𝔟]}=X_{[𝔞^1𝔟]}`$.

Each component $`X_x`$ has an analytic parametrization

$$X_x(_{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{\Gamma }_x(𝔫)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{},\text{where }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(k)\text{, and}$$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_x(𝔫)=\left\{\left(\stackrel{ab}{cd}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_x\right|c0mod𝔫\}.$$

Let $`E/k`$ be a non-isotrivial elliptic curve with conductor $`𝔫\mathrm{}`$, where $`𝔫A`$. Then there is a surjective morphism defined over $`k`$

$$\pi :X_0(𝔫)E.$$
(3.1)
We may suppose that $`E`$ is maximal in its $`k`$-isogeny class with respect to the map (3.1), we call it the strong Weil curve. Then this map can be given explicitly on the $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-valued points, which we will describe next.

Let $`𝒯`$ be the Bruhat-Tits tree for $`\mathrm{PGL}_2(k_{\mathrm{}})`$, and denote by $`\underset{¯}{H}(𝒯,)`$ the group of harmonic cochains on $`𝒯`$ with values in $``$, and define the subgroup $`\underset{¯}{H}_!(𝒯,)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_x(𝔫)}`$ of cochains invariant under $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x(𝔫)`$ and with compact support on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x(𝔫)\mathrm{}𝒯`$. Then these cochains correspond to certain automorphic forms on $`\mathrm{GL}_2`$. Moreover, to $`E`$ one associates, for each $`x=[𝔞]\mathrm{Pic}(A)`$, a primitive Hecke newform $`\phi _x\underset{¯}{H}_!(𝒯,)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_x(𝔫)}`$. To $`\phi _x`$ we associate furthermore a holomorphic theta function $`u_x:\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ with multiplier $`c_x`$, (i.e. $`u_x(\alpha z)=c_x(\alpha )u_x(z)`$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_x(𝔫)`$). Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x=\{c_x(\alpha )|\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_x(𝔫)\}`$, which is a multiplicative lattice in $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$. Then $`E`$, which has multiplicative reduction at $`\mathrm{}`$, is isomorphic over $`k_{\mathrm{}}`$ to the Tate curve $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$. We have the explicit parametrization

## 4 Degeneracy maps

We next define degeneracy maps between Drinfeld modular curves. Let $`𝔪A`$ be an ideal coprime to $`𝔫`$. A generic point of $`X_0(𝔪𝔫)`$ can be written as $`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }/C)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a Drinfeld module, and $`CA/𝔪𝔫`$ an $`A`$-submodule of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{tors}`$. For any divisor $`𝔡|𝔪𝔫`$ we denote by $`C[𝔡]A/𝔡`$ the $`𝔡`$-torsion submodule of $`C`$. Now, for every $`𝔡|𝔪`$ we define the $`𝔡`$th degeneracy map

$`\delta _𝔡:X_0(𝔪𝔫)`$ $``$ $`X_0(𝔫)`$
$`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }/C)`$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{\Phi }/C[𝔡],\mathrm{\Phi }/C[𝔡𝔫]),`$
which maps the $`[𝔞]`$-component of $`X_0(𝔪𝔫)`$ to the $`[𝔡^1𝔞]`$-component of $`X_0(𝔫)`$. In this way, we may define the Hecke correspondence $`T_𝔪X_0(𝔫)^2`$ as the image of $`X_0(𝔪𝔫)`$ under the map $`\delta _1\times \delta _𝔪`$.

More generally, let $`\tau (𝔪)`$ be the number of divisors of $`𝔪`$, then we define the full degeneracy map $`\delta :X_0(𝔪𝔫)X_0(𝔫)^{\tau (𝔪)}`$ as the product $`\delta =_{𝔡|𝔪}\delta _𝔡`$. Composing with $`\pi `$, we obtain a new parametrization of $`E`$ by $`X_0(𝔪𝔫)`$:

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}\hfill \pi ^{}:& X_0(𝔪𝔫)& \stackrel{\delta }{}& X_0(𝔫)^{\tau (𝔪)}& \stackrel{\pi }{}& E^{\tau (𝔪)}& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}& E\\ & z& & (z_𝔡)_{𝔡|𝔪}& & (\pi (z_𝔡))_{𝔡|𝔪}& & _{𝔡|𝔪}\pi (z_𝔡).\end{array}$$
(4.1)
###### Proposition 4.2

The morphism $`\pi ^{}:X_0(𝔪𝔫)E`$ is defined over $`k`$. Suppose that $`k=𝔽_q(T)`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{})=1`$. Then $`\pi ^{}:X_0(𝔪𝔫)E`$ is surjective.

Proof. It is clear that $`\mathrm{Gal}(H/k)`$ leaves $`\pi ^{}`$ invariant, and hence $`\pi ^{}`$ is defined over $`k`$.

Now we suppose that $`k=𝔽_q(T)`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{})=1`$. Then, after replacing $`T`$ by another generator if necessary, we may take $`A=𝔽_q[T]`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{Pic}(A)`$ is trivial, and the modular curves $`X_0(𝔪𝔫)`$ and $`X_0(𝔫)`$ are irreducible and defined over $`k`$. Analytically, the map $`\pi ^{}`$ is given by

$$\pi ^{}([z])=\underset{𝔡|𝔪}{}u(dz)mod\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }=E(_{\mathrm{}}),$$

where $`[z]`$ denotes the class of $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`Y_0(𝔪𝔫)`$, $`u=u_\phi `$ is the theta function associated to the newform $`\phi `$, and $`dA`$ is the monic generator of the ideal $`𝔡`$, for each $`𝔡|𝔪`$. We need to show that the map $`u^{}(z)=_{𝔡|𝔪}u(dz)`$ is not constant.

Denote by $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ the ring of rigid holomorphic functions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then there is an exact sequence

$$1_{\mathrm{}}^{}𝒪_\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })^{}\stackrel{r}{}\underset{¯}{H}(𝒯,)0.$$

Furthermore, for any $`f\mathrm{GL}_2(k)`$ we have $`r(uf)=\phi f\underset{¯}{H}(𝒯,)`$, so if $`u^{}`$ is constant, then we get

$$0=r(u)=\phi +\underset{𝔡|𝔪,𝔡1}{}\phi d\underset{¯}{H}(𝒯,),$$
(4.3)
where $`d`$ denotes the matrix $`\left(\stackrel{d\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}}{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}}\right)`$. Now we examine the Fourier coefficients of these terms. From Proposition 2.10 of  follows that the “first” Fourier coefficient of $`\phi d`$ is $`c(\phi d,(1))=0`$ if $`d𝔽_q^{}`$. On the other hand, by a result of Atkin-Lehner (see §1.4 of ) follows that every newform $`\phi 0`$ satisfies $`c(\phi ,(1))0`$). Thus (4.3) implies that $`\phi =0`$, a contradiction.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. In the case of general $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, Proposition 4.2 should still hold. Indeed, for each component $`X_x`$ of $`X_0(𝔪𝔫)`$, one has a similar analytical description of $`\pi ^{}`$ and an equality of the form (4.3). But these now involve a combination of different theta functions $`u_y`$, one for each component $`X_y`$ of $`X_0(𝔫)`$ such that $`y=x[𝔡^1]`$ in $`\mathrm{Pic}(A)`$ for some $`𝔡|𝔪`$. This may be simplified by considering only those $`𝔪`$ for which every $`𝔡|𝔪`$ is principal (in our application in §7 this amounts to choosing $`K`$ such that only principal primes of $`k`$ ramify in $`K`$), but one must still calculate the Fourier coefficients in this case.

## 5 Canonical factorizations of isogenies

In this section, we will describe the following canonical factorization of cyclic isogenies between CM Drinfeld modules.

###### Proposition 5.1

Let $`f:\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ be a cyclic isogeny of degree $`𝔡`$ between Drinfeld modules with complex multiplication by orders $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$ of conductor $`𝔠_i`$ in $`K`$, for $`i=1,2`$. Then we have a commutative diagram of cyclic isogenies

Here $`\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{})=\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{})=𝒪_𝔠`$ is an order of conductor $`𝔠`$ in $`K`$, and $`f,f_1,f_2,f^{}`$ are of degree $`𝔡,𝔡_1,𝔡_2,𝔡^{}`$, respectively. This data is summarized in the right-hand diagram. Furthermore, we have $`𝔡=𝔡_1𝔡_2𝔡^{}`$, $`𝔠=𝔠_1/𝔡_1=𝔠_2/𝔡_2`$ and $`𝔠+𝔡^{}=A`$. Lastly, there is an ideal $`𝔇𝒪_K`$ with $`𝒪_K/𝔇A/𝔡^{}`$ such that $`f^{}`$ corresponds to $`𝔇𝒪_𝔠`$.

Proof. We follow closely the appendix of . We will use the following notation. Let $`𝔞𝔟`$ be lattices (all lattices here have rank $`2`$ and are contained in $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$), then we write $`𝔞_𝔪𝔟`$ if $`𝔟/𝔞A/𝔪`$. Also, the conductor $`c(𝔞)`$ of the lattice $`𝔞`$ is the conductor of the order $`\mathrm{End}(𝔞)`$ in $`𝒪_K`$.

Suppose $`𝔞_𝔡𝔟`$. Following §9 of  word for word, one arrives at an inclusion of lattices

$$𝔞_{𝔡_1}𝒪_𝔠𝔞_𝔡^{}𝔡_2𝒪_𝔠𝔟_{𝔡_2}𝔟.$$
(5.2)
Here $`𝒪_𝔠`$ is an order (of conductor $`𝔠`$), which is maximal with respect to the property $`𝒪_𝔠𝔞𝔟`$. Let $`𝔠_1=c(𝔞),𝔠_2=c(𝔟)`$, then $`𝔡_1=𝔠_1/𝔠`$, $`𝔡_2=𝔠_2/𝔠`$ and $`𝔡^{}=𝔡/𝔡_1𝔡_2`$. To continue the argument, we need the following folklore result.

###### Lemma 5.3

Let $`𝔟`$ be a lattice of conductor $`𝔠`$, and let $`𝔮A`$ be a prime dividing $`𝔠`$. Then there exactly $`|𝔮|+1`$ sublattices $`𝔞_𝔮𝔟`$. One of them (given by $`𝔞=𝔮𝒪_{𝔠/𝔮}𝔟`$) has conductor $`c(𝔞)=𝔠/𝔮`$ and the other $`|𝔮|`$ lattices have conductor $`c(𝔞)=𝔠𝔮`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

We want to show that $`𝔠`$ and $`𝔡^{}`$ are coprime. Let $`𝔮A`$ be a prime. If $`𝔮|𝔠`$, then by Lemma 5.3, $`𝔞^{}=𝒪_{𝔠/𝔮}𝔞`$ is the unique $`𝒪_𝔠`$-stable lattice satisfying $`𝔮𝔞^{}_𝔮𝒪_𝔠𝔞`$, or, equivalently, $`𝒪_𝔠𝔞_𝔮𝔞^{}`$. Now suppose $`𝔮`$ divides $`𝔡^{}`$. Then $`𝔡_2𝒪_𝔠𝔟/𝒪_𝔠𝔞A/𝔡^{}`$ has a unique $`A`$-submodule isomorphic to $`A/𝔮`$, namely its $`𝔮`$-torsion submodule: $`(𝔡_2𝒪_𝔠𝔟/𝒪_𝔠𝔞)[𝔮]=(𝔡_2𝒪_𝔠𝔟𝔮^1𝒪_𝔠𝔞)/𝒪_𝔠𝔞`$, hence $`𝔞^{\prime \prime }=𝔡_2𝒪_𝔠𝔟𝔮^1𝒪_𝔠𝔞`$ is also $`𝒪_𝔠`$-stable and satisfies $`𝒪_𝔠𝔞_𝔮𝔞^{\prime \prime }`$, and is furthermore contained in $`𝔟`$. Thus, if $`𝔮`$ divides both $`𝔠`$ and $`𝔡^{}`$, then $`𝒪_{𝔠/𝔮}𝔞=𝔞^{}=𝔞^{\prime \prime }𝔟`$, which contradicts the maximality of $`𝒪_𝔠`$. So $`𝔠`$ and $`𝔡^{}`$ are coprime.

Lastly, we set $`𝔇=𝔡_2^1𝒪_K𝔟^1𝔞`$. Then we see easily that $`𝔇_𝔡^{}𝒪_K`$. Also, $`𝔇_𝔠=𝔇𝒪_𝔠`$ is invertible in $`𝒪_𝔠`$ and we have $`𝔡_2𝒪_𝔠𝔟=𝔇_𝔠^1𝒪_𝔠𝔞`$. Now, using the equivalence between lattices and Drinfeld modules, Proposition 5.1 follows.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 Geometric action

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n=\mathrm{\Phi }^{𝒪_n}`$. We say an element $`\sigma G`$ is “geometric” if there exists a cyclic isogeny $`f_𝔡:\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\sigma `$ of fixed degree $`𝔡`$ for infinitely many $`n`$. In particular, if $`𝔡+𝔫=A`$, then each $`(x_n,x_n^\sigma )`$ lies in the Hecke correspondence $`T_𝔡X_0(𝔫)^2`$.

Let $`𝔭_1,\mathrm{},𝔭_g`$ be the primes $`𝔭`$ of $`k`$ which ramify in $`K/k`$, and let $`𝔓_1,\mathrm{},𝔓_g`$ be the primes of $`K`$ lying above them. Denote by $`\sigma _i=(𝔓_i,K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]/K)`$ the Frobenius elements, and by $`G_1=\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _g`$ the group they generate. Suppose $`[𝔭_i]`$ has order $`e_i`$ in $`\mathrm{Pic}(A)`$. Then $`\sigma _i`$ has order $`2e_i`$ in $`G`$, and it follows that $`G_1G_0`$. Let $`𝔪=𝔭_1^{2e_11}\mathrm{}𝔭_g^{2e_g1}`$, which is coprime to $`𝔫`$ (recall that every prime in $`𝔫`$ splits in $`K/k`$). Then the elements of $`G_1`$ are in a one-to-one correspondence with the divisors $`𝔡`$ of $`𝔪`$, via $`𝔡=_{i=1}^g𝔭_i^{n_i}\sigma _𝔡=_{i=1}^g\sigma _i^{n_i}`$.

###### Proposition 6.1

$`G_1`$ is the subgroup of geometric elements of $`G_0`$. More precisely,

1. Let $`\sigma =\sigma _𝔡G_1`$ for some $`𝔡|𝔪`$. Then $`(x_n,x_n^\sigma )T_𝔡X_0(𝔫)^2`$ for all $`n`$. In particular, $`(x_n^\sigma )_{\sigma G_1}X_0(𝔫)^{|G_1|}`$ lies in the image of $`X_0(𝔪𝔫)`$ under the full degeneracy map $`\delta `$ described in §4.
2. Conversely, let $`\sigma G_0`$ and suppose that there exist cyclic isogenies $`f_n:\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\sigma `$ of fixed degree $`𝔇_\sigma `$ for infinitely many $`n`$. Then $`\sigma G_1`$.

Proof. From (2.2) follows that each $`\sigma G`$ can be written in the form $`\sigma =(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{})`$, where for each $`n`$ $`\sigma _n\mathrm{Gal}(K[𝔭^n]/K)`$ corresponds to an invertible ideal $`𝔄_n=𝔄𝒪_n`$ in $`𝒪_n`$, for some $`𝔄𝒪_K`$.

For each $`mn`$ the theory of complex multiplication gives an isogeny $`f_m:\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{\sigma _m}`$ with $`\mathrm{ker}(f_m)𝒪_m/𝔄_m`$. Now let $`𝔞A`$ lie under $`𝔄=𝔄_n𝒪_K`$. If $`\sigma G_1`$, then $`𝔞`$ is a product of primes which ramify in $`K/k`$. Thus each $`\mathrm{ker}(f_m)𝒪_m/𝔄_mA/𝔞`$ is cyclic. It follows that $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_n,\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\sigma )`$ lies on the curve $`Y_0(𝔞)`$. Furthermore, $`𝔞`$ is prime to $`𝔫`$, hence $`\sigma `$ is compatible with $`𝔫`$-isogenies, and it follows that the pair of Heegner points $`(x_n,x_n^\sigma )`$ lies on the Hecke correspondence $`T_𝔞X_0(𝔫)^2`$. This proves part (1) of Proposition 6.1.

To prove part (2), we let $`I`$ be an infinite subset, $`\sigma G`$, and we suppose that there exists a cyclic isogeny $`f_n:\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\sigma `$ of degree $`𝔡`$ for all $`nI`$. One potential source of trouble is the fact that $`𝔭`$ might divide $`𝔡`$. Write $`𝔡=𝔭^t𝔡^{}`$ with $`𝔭𝔡^{}`$. We apply Proposition 5.1 to the case where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\sigma `$, and $`nI`$ satisfies $`nt/2`$. Then we see that $`t=2r`$ is even, and we have a commutative diagram (with the relevant conductors and degrees shown on the right)

We claim that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }`$. Indeed, we have maps $`f_1^\sigma :\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\mathrm{\Psi }_1^\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }`$, and $`f_2:\mathrm{\Psi }_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}`$, both of which correspond to lattice inclusions of the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2_{𝔭^r}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`c(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)=c(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)=𝔭^{nr}=c(\mathrm{\Lambda })/𝔭^r`$. It follows from Lemma 5.3 (and induction on $`r`$) that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, which proves the claim.

Now we restrict our attention to $`f^{}:\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }`$. As $`f^{}`$ has degree $`𝔡^{}`$, which is prime to $`𝔭`$, it follows that $`f^{}`$ corresponds, from Proposition 5.1, to an invertible ideal $`𝔇_n𝒪_K`$ such that $`𝒪_K/𝔇_nA/𝔡^{}`$ for all $`n`$. This leaves only finitely many possibilities for $`𝔇_n`$, hence, by restricting $`I`$, we may assume $`𝔇_n=𝔇𝒪_K`$ for all $`nI`$. It now follows that $`(𝔇,K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]/K)=\sigma `$. In particular, if $`\sigma G_0`$, then $`\sigma `$ has finite order, and there exists an integer $`s`$ such that $`𝔇^s`$ is principal in $`𝒪_K`$. Moreover, $`𝔇^s𝒪_n`$ is principal for each $`nI`$, and so $`𝔇^s`$ is generated by an element $`d_{nI}𝒪_n=A`$. Denote by $`z\overline{z}`$ the non-trivial element of $`\mathrm{Gal}(K/k)`$. Then for every prime $`𝔓`$ of $`𝒪_K`$ dividing $`𝔇`$ we see that $`\overline{𝔓}`$ also divides $`𝔇`$. But as $`𝒪_K/𝔇A/𝔡^{}`$ is cyclic, this is only possible if $`𝔓`$ is ramified in $`K/k`$, and hence $`\sigma G_1`$. This concludes the proof of Proposition 6.1.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. We have also shown that the geometric elements of $`G`$ are the elements of the form $`(𝔇,K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]/K)`$ for some $`𝔇𝒪_K`$ with $`𝒪_K/𝔇`$ cyclic. Thus they form a countable subgroup of $`G`$.

## 7 Proof of Theorem 1

Lemma 2.3 says that $`E_{tors}(K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}])`$ is finite, so in particular, all these torsion points are defined over a finite extension of $`k`$. Now Theorem 1 will follow if the fields of definition of the $`y_n`$’s grow with $`n`$. We prove this as follows.

Let $`𝔪=𝔭_1𝔭_2\mathrm{}𝔭_gA`$ as in §6, and recall the full degeneracy map $`\delta :X_0(𝔪𝔫)X_0(𝔫)^{|G_1|}`$ from §4. From Proposition 6.1 follows that the point $`(x_n^\sigma )_{\sigma G_1}`$ lies in the image of $`\delta `$, and we denote by $`x_n^{}X_0(𝔪𝔫)(K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}])`$ its preimage, which is given by $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^{𝒪_n},\mathrm{\Phi }^{𝒩_n^1_n^1})`$, where $`_n=𝔓_1\mathrm{}𝔓_g𝒪_n`$. We combine $`\delta `$ with $`\pi `$ to obtain the new modular parametrization $`\pi ^{}:X_0(𝔪𝔫)E`$ of §4. Let $`RG_0`$ be a set of representatives for $`G_0/G_1`$. Notice that

$$y_n=\mathrm{Tr}_{G_0}(\pi (x_n))=\mathrm{Tr}_R\left(\underset{\sigma G_1}{}\pi (x_n)^\sigma \right)=\underset{\sigma R}{}\pi ^{}(x_n^{})^\sigma .$$

For each $`m`$ we choose $`\theta _m\mathrm{Gal}(K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]/K[𝔭^m])`$ such that none of the elements $`\theta _m\sigma `$ is geometric, for $`\sigma R`$. Then we consider the composite map

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}f_m:& \stackrel{\rho }{}& X_0(𝔪𝔫)^{|R|}\times X_0(𝔪𝔫)^{|R|}& \stackrel{\pi ^{}}{}& E^{|R|}\times E^{|R|}& & \\ & & & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}& E\times E& \stackrel{}{}& E\\ & & & & & & \\ n& & (x_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma },x_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{\theta _m\sigma })_{\sigma R}& & (\pi ^{}(x_n^{})^\sigma ,\pi ^{}(x_n^{})^{\theta _m\sigma })_{\sigma R}& & \\ & & & & (y_n,y_n^{\theta _m})& & y_ny_n^{\theta _m}.\end{array}$$

We will show that $`\rho `$ is dominant, hence $`f_m:E;f_m(n)=y_ny_n^{\theta _m}`$ has finite fibres. In particular, $`f_m^1(0)`$ is finite, and the proof will be complete.

Here the André-Oort conjecture (see e.g. ) enters the picture, for which we state the following characteristic-$`p`$ analogue (see ).

###### Conjecture 7.1 (André-Oort)

Let $`X=X_1\times \mathrm{}\times X_n`$ be a product of Drinfeld modular curves, and let $`ZX`$ be an irreducible algebraic subvariety for which every projection $`ZX_i`$ is dominant. Suppose $`Z`$ contains a Zariski-dense set of CM points. Then $`Z`$ is a “modular” subvariety, which means the following. There exist $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_n\mathrm{GL}_2(k)`$ and a partition $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}=_{j=1}^mS_j`$ such that $`Z=_{j=1}^mZ_j`$, and each $`Z_j(_{\mathrm{}})_{iS_j}X_i(_{\mathrm{}})`$ is the image of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ under the map $`z([g_i(z)])_{iS_j}`$.

Let $`I`$ be an infinite subset. We suppose for the moment that Conjecture 7.1 holds. In our case $`X=X_0(𝔪𝔫)^{2|R|}`$ and we take $`Z`$ to be a positive-dimensional irreducible component of the Zariski-closure of $`\rho (I)`$ in $`X`$. Then Conjecture 7.1 implies that either $`Z=X`$, or there exist some $`\sigma _i\sigma _jR\theta _mR`$ such that the projection of $`Z`$ onto the factor $`X_0(𝔪𝔫)^2`$ indexed by $`(\sigma _i,\sigma _j)`$ is contained in some Hecke correspondence $`T_𝔡`$. But the latter case is impossible, as this would mean that $`\sigma _i\sigma _j^1`$ is geometric, contrary to the definitions of $`R`$ and $`\theta _m`$. Thus $`Z=X`$, and we see that $`\rho `$ is dominant. The result follows. More precisely, we have shown:

###### Theorem 2

Suppose Conjecture 7.1 holds in the case where $`X=X_0(𝔪𝔫)^m`$ and $`ZX`$ contains a Zariski-dense set of CM points $`w=(w_1,\mathrm{},w_m)`$ for which $`\mathrm{End}(w_1)=\mathrm{}=\mathrm{End}(w_m)=𝒪_n`$ for some $`n`$. Suppose further that the map $`\pi ^{}:X_0(𝔪𝔫)E`$ is surjective. Then for every infinite subset $`I`$ the group generated by $`\{y_n|nI\}`$ in $`E(H[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}])`$ has infinite rank.

In the special case where $`k=𝔽_q(T)`$, $`A=𝔽_q[T]`$ and $`q`$ is odd, Conjecture 7.1 is known , and $`\pi ^{}`$ is surjective (Proposition 4.2), and so Theorem 1 follows.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. Theorems 1 and 2 have two very easy mild generalizations: Firstly, fix an ideal $`𝔠A`$ prime to $`𝔫`$. Then we can construct Heegner points corresponding to the orders $`𝒪_{𝔠,n}=A+𝔠𝔭^n𝒪_K`$, for which similar results hold. Secondly, let $`\chi :G_0\{\pm 1\}`$ be a character, and let $`K_\chi [𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]`$ be the subfield of $`K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{ker}(\chi )`$. Note that $`K_\chi [𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]=H[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]`$ if $`\chi `$ is trivial. Then we may replace the $`G_0`$-trace on $`E`$ by the $`(G_0,\chi )`$-trace

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{G_0,\chi }:E(K[𝔭^{\mathrm{}}])E(K_\chi [𝔭^{\mathrm{}}]);x\underset{\sigma G_0}{}\chi (\sigma )x^\sigma ,$$

and obtain a similar result. We leave the details to the dedicated reader.