text:
# PM/03-07 Reliability of a high energy one-loop expansion of 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻→𝑊⁺𝑊⁻ in the SM and in the MSSM 1footnote 11footnote 1Partially supported by EU contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149

## I Introduction

Historically, $`WW`$ production from $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation has been a basic process for the purposes of testing the SM and several of its extensions or alternatives WWrev . This fact has been known for decades, and has already led to several constraints from the available measurements at LEP2LEP2 . From a practical point of view, the derivation of the constraints is relatively straightforward since in many cases it does not require, given the total absence of any signal of new physics, an extremely precise theoretical calculation. This situation should change at the foreseen future linear colliders (LCLC , CLICCLIC ), where an accuracy at the level of a relative few (1-2) percent is expected and, hopefully, evidence of some kind of new physics will have already been given. In this spirit, a rigorous calculation of effects beyond the simple tree level is a theoretical must.

In the simplest case of the SM, this complete one-loop calculation has been performed almost a decade ago BD . Quite recently, HahnHahn  has redone the SM calculation (finding complete agreement with Ref.BD ) and extended it to the MSSM case. His analysis has been performed in an energy range between, roughly, 200 GeV and 1 TeV and represents, to our knowledge, the only complete analysis of this process in the MSSM which is nowadays available.

A feature that one notices at first sight in various plots of the different considered cross sections is the fact that the one-loop effects become almost immediately large, reaching a relative size of fifteen percent or more, both in the SM and in the MSSM (where they are systematically larger). On one side, this has the positive important meaning that the radiative corrections do provide a real stringent test of the model. On another side, this could introduce a disturbing warning: if a final accuracy at the one percent level is aimed, a fifteen percent one-loop effect might require the hard calculation of higher order (e.g two-loop) effects, that seems, at least in the MSSM case, beyond the available technical (and human) possibilities.

The aim of this paper is that of arguing that, at least at the relative few percent level, a one-loop calculation does not seem to need extra corrections below 1 TeV, but cannot give the same reliability at higher (2,3 TeV) center of mass (c.m.) energies. With this purpose, we shall divide our discussion into three parts. In Section II we shall compute the electroweak Sudakov logarithmic expansion (for this terminology see e.g Ref.sud ) of the process to subleading logarithmic accuracy, both at the one loop level and resummed to all orders. For c.m. energies beyond a few hundred GeV this asymptotic expansion should be certainly valid for the SM. In the MSSM case, a priori, it can be assumed to be reliable in the picture of a relatively light SUSY scenario, where all the relevant electroweak sparticle masses are below a few hundred GeV; our analysis will be limited therefore to this special configuration. In Section III we shall compare the effects on the different observables of the process of the two approximate expansions and show that they are ”essentially” (i.e. at the assumed few percent accuracy level) identical below 1 TeV, but drastically different at higher (2,3 TeV) energies. From this evidence we shall then try to conclude in Section IV that a complete one-loop calculation does not seem to require extra two-loop corrections in the energy region below 1 TeV, the proposed range of a future LC.

## II Logarithmic Sudakov expansions

In all our analysis we shall assume for the purposes of our logarithmic Sudakov expansions, that are by definition asymptotic ones, that the involved c.m. energies are sufficiently higher than all the involved masses, and therefore we shall consider the behaviour of the process in the ”high energy” limit. In this range, we shall now provide a brief description of the essential kinematical properties of the scattering amplitude, both at the Born level and at the considered higher orders.

### II.1 High energy behaviour at the Born level

Denoting by $`l_1,l_2,p_1,p_2`$ the $`e^{},e^+,W^{},W^+`$ momenta and $`e_1,e_2`$ the $`W^{},W^+`$ polarization vectors, the invariant Born amplitude due to $`\nu _e,\gamma ,Z`$ exchanges is:

$$A^{Born}=A^{\nu _e,Born}+A^{\gamma ,Born}+A^{Z,Born}$$
(1)
with

$`A^{\nu _e,Born}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2s_W^2t}}\overline{v}(e^+)(e/_2)(p/_1l/_1)(e/_1)P_Lu(e^{})`$ (2)
$`A^{\gamma +Z,Born}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e^2}{s}}\overline{v}(e^+)[(e_2.p_1)(e/_1)(e_1.e_2)(p/_1)(e_1.p_2)(e/_2)]\times `$ (3)
$`[(1\chi {\displaystyle \frac{2s_W^21}{2s_W^2}})P_L+(1\chi )P_R)]u(e^{})`$
where $`P_{R/L}=(1\pm \gamma ^5)/2`$, $`s=(l_1+l_2)^2=(p_1+p_2)^2,t=(l_1p_1)^2=M_W^2\frac{s}{2}(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\vartheta )`$$`u=(l_2p_1)^2=M_W^2\frac{s}{2}(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\vartheta ),\beta =\sqrt{1\frac{4M_W^2}{s}}`$$`\chi =s/(sM_Z^2)`$.

Helicity amplitudes
From these invariant forms one obtains the helicity amplitudes denoted as $`F(\lambda ,\mu _1,\mu _2)`$. In the limit of negligible electron mass, $`\lambda `$ is the chirality (L when $`\lambda =1`$ and $`R`$ when $`\lambda =1`$) related to the $`e^\pm `$ helicities $`\lambda 2\lambda (e^{})=2\lambda (e^+)=\pm 1`$. The $`W^\pm `$ helicities are $`\mu _1(W^{})=\pm 1,0`$ and $`\mu _2(W^+)=\pm 1,0`$ and we will denote by $`W_T^\pm `$ and $`W_0^\pm `$ the transverse and longitudinal cases. For details see for example Ref.BD . We now just recall the main results that we will use to write the contributions at one loop and beyond.

It is convenient to consider separately the amplitudes corresponding to the 3 different types of final states, $`W_TW_T`$, $`W_TW_0`$, $`W_0W_0`$, whose properties are, already at Born level, very different in the high energy limit $`sM_W^2`$:

$`(𝐖_𝐓𝐖_\mathrm{𝟎})`$: The $`W_TW_0`$ Born amplitudes are mass suppressed (i.e. behave like $`M_W/\sqrt{s}`$) and we shall ignore them.

$`(𝐖_𝐓𝐖_𝐓)`$: The only non vanishing $`W_TW_T`$ Born amplitudes are given by the t-channel neutrino exchange diagram and, because of the purely Left-handed $`We\nu `$ coupling, they reduce to

$$F^{Born}(L,\mu ,\mu )(\frac{e^2}{2s_W^2})(\frac{s}{2t})\mathrm{sin}\vartheta (\mu \mathrm{cos}\vartheta )$$
(4)
At high energy these amplitudes are strongly peaked forward as

$$\frac{2t}{s}=\beta \mathrm{cos}\vartheta 1+\frac{2M_W^2}{s}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta 1$$
(5)
For the purposes of our asymptotic expansions, we must assume large values of $`s`$ and $`t`$. Therefore we shall introduce an angular cut in our numerical computations as discussed in Section III.
Note that the other set of $`W_TW_T`$ amplitudes $`F^{Born}(\lambda ,\mu ,\mu )`$ receives contributions from both $`\nu _e`$, $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ exchanges whose sum cancels in the high energy limit

$`F^{Born}(\lambda ,\mu ,\mu )O(M_W^2/s)`$ (6)
$`(𝐖_\mathrm{𝟎}𝐖_\mathrm{𝟎})`$: The $`W_0W_0`$ Born amplitudes result from the addition of $`\nu _e`$, $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ exchange contributions leading to

$`F^{Born}(L,0,0){\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4s_W^2c_W^2}}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta F^{Born}(R,0,0){\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2c_W^2}}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta `$ (7)
The cancellations leading to the above results at order $`M_W^2/s`$, usually dubbed as ”gauge cancellations” (resulting from the relation between the $`We\nu `$ coupling and the self-gauge boson $`\gamma WW`$, $`ZWW`$ couplings), lead to results that are in agreement with the equivalence theorem eqth  which states the equality between the $`e^+e^{}W_0^+W_0^{}`$ amplitudes and the amplitudes for charged Goldstone boson production $`e^+e^{}G^+G^{}`$. This equality is true not only at Born level but also at higher orders at logarithmic accuracy revmel . The high energy behaviour of $`G^+G^{}`$ can be found in previous papers scalar ; HH .

### II.2 Amplitudes at one loop

At one loop the amplitudes at logarithmic accuracy can be obtained either by a direct computation of the high energy limit of the Feynman diagrams like in our previous works see e.g. scalar ; HH ; susylog  or by using the splitting function formalism Splitting  and the Parameter Renormalization (PR) properties giving the leading logarithms arising from soft and collinear singularities real . The results agree and give

$`(𝐖_𝐓𝐖_𝐓):F(L,\mu ,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`F^{Born}(L,\mu ,\mu )\{1+(b_L^{in})[n_i\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]`$ (8)
$`+b^{fin,TT}[\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]+b_L^{ang,TT}[\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]\}`$
$`(𝐖_\mathrm{𝟎}𝐖_\mathrm{𝟎}):F(\lambda ,0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`F^{Born}(\lambda ,0,0)\{1+b_\lambda ^{in}[n_i\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]`$ (9)
$`+b^{fin,00}[n_f\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]b^{Yuk,00}[\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]+b_\lambda ^{ang,00}[\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}[({\displaystyle \frac{c_W^2}{s_W^2}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{s_W^2}{c_W^2}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0^{})\delta _{\lambda ,L}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0^{}}{c_W^2}}\delta _{\lambda ,R}][\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]\}`$
where a common mass scale, chosen to be $`M_W`$, has been used both in the genuine Sudakov logarithms and in the linear ones of Renormalization Group (RG) origin discussed below. With this choice, the dependence on the MSSM mass parameters has been fully shifted into residual next-to subleading terms (either constant or vanishing with energy) that are beyond the purposes of this paper.

In Eqs.(8-9) one recognizes

1. the universal effects for the incoming $`e^+,e^{}`$ with the form $`[n_i\mathrm{log}\frac{s}{M_W^2}\mathrm{log}^2\frac{s}{M_W^2}]`$, $`n_i=3`$ in SM and $`n_i=2`$ in MSSM, as established in Refs.scalar ; real  and the coefficients

$$b_L^{\mathrm{in}}=\frac{\alpha (1+2c_W^2)}{16\pi s_W^2c_W^2}b_R^{\mathrm{in}}=\frac{\alpha }{4\pi c_W^2}$$
(10)
2. the universal effects for the outgoing $`W_T^+,W_T^{}`$ with the form $`[\mathrm{log}^2\frac{s}{M_W^2}]`$, both in SM and in MSSM, real  and the coefficient

$$b^{\mathrm{fin},\mathrm{TT}}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi s_W^2}$$
(11)
3. the universal effects for the outgoing $`W_0^+G^+,W_0^{}G^{}`$ with the form $`[n_f\mathrm{log}\frac{s}{M_W^2}\mathrm{log}^2\frac{s}{M_W^2}]`$, $`n_f=4`$ in SM and $`n_f=2`$ in MSSM for what concerns the gauge part and the additional Yukawa term for both models, with the coefficients scalar ; HH ; real

$$b^{\mathrm{fin},00}=\frac{\alpha (1+2c_W^2)}{16\pi s_W^2c_W^2}b^{Yuk,00}=\frac{3\alpha (m_t^2+m_b^2)}{8\pi s_W^2M_W^2}$$
(12)
4. the non universal (angular dependent) contribution which only consists in residual terms arising from the quadratic logarithms $`\mathrm{log}^2t,\mathrm{log}^2u`$ (from which the $`\mathrm{log}^2s`$ part has been subtracted and put in the universal contribution) generated by t-channel triangles and box diagrams containing $`W,Z,\gamma `$ gauge boson internal lines, leading for both SM and MSSM cases to

$$b_L^{\mathrm{ang},\mathrm{TT}}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi s_W^2}[\mathrm{log}\frac{t}{u}+(1\frac{t}{u})\mathrm{log}\frac{t}{s}]$$
(13)
and

$$b_L^{\mathrm{ang},00}=\frac{\alpha }{4\pi }[\frac{4c_W^2}{s_W^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{t}{s}+\frac{1}{s_W^2c_W^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{t}{u}]b_R^{\mathrm{ang},00}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi c_W^2}[\mathrm{log}\frac{t}{u}]$$
(14)

In the ($`W_0W_0`$) case, the last term is the one loop single log arising from the RG contribution (intermediate $`\gamma ,Z`$ self-energy contributions). It can be directly obtained from the corresponding Born contribution through the expression

$$F^{\mathrm{RG}}=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\left(g^4\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0\frac{dF^{\mathrm{Born}}}{dg^2}+g^{}_{}{}^{}4\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0^{}\frac{dF^{\mathrm{Born}}}{dg^{}_{}{}^{}2}\right)\mathrm{log}\frac{s}{M_W^2}$$
(15)
where $`gs_W=g^{}c_W=e`$ and

$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0={\displaystyle \frac{43}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{3}}(\text{SM}),{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}(\text{MSSM})`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{5N}{9}}(\text{SM}),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{5N}{6}}(\text{MSSM})`$ (16)
or by taking the first order expansion of the running expressions

$`g^2(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(\mu ^2)}{1+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0\frac{g^2(\mu ^2)}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{s}{M_W^2}}},g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(s)={\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\mu ^2)}{1+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0^{}\frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\mu ^2)}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{s}{M_W^2}}}`$ (17)
In the ($`W_TW_T`$) case there is no such RG term. This can be seen either in the diagrammatic way (there is no $`\gamma ,Z`$ self-energy contribution to $`F(L,\mu ,\mu )`$), or when using the splitting function formalism and the PR analysis by observing the cancellation of the single log due to the collinear singularities associated to the final lines with the one arising from the PR contribution real .

The SM part of the above results agrees completely with a previous analysis dp1 . We have also checked that these high energy $`W_TW_T`$ properties are in agreement with those of the Wino components in chargino pair production NR , due to supersymmetry.

### II.3 Resummed Amplitudes

The general procedure for writing the so-called resummed amplitude, i.e. the exponential form containing all orders at subleading logarithmic accuracy has been described in several papers revmel ; resum  and applied to specific cases scalar ; NR . It has also been very recently successfully checked by a non trivial comparison with a partial two-loop calculation to leading order twoloop  and with the angular dependent subleading contribution for arbitrary processesDMP . So we will not repeat it here, but will immediately write the result in a rather transparent form.

For $`W_TW_T`$ amplitudes the expression is:

$`F(L,\mu ,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`F^{Born}(L,\mu ,\mu )\mathrm{exp}\{[\overline{b}_L^{in}+\overline{b}^{fin,TT}][{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{log}^3({\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}})]`$ (18)
$`+(b_L^{in})[n_i\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]+b^{fin,TT}[\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]`$
$`+b^{WPR}[\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]+b_L^{ang,TT}[\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]\}`$
$`+F^{RG}(L,\mu ,\mu )`$
and for $`W_0W_0G^+G^{}`$ amplitudes:

$`F(\lambda ,0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`F^{Born}(\lambda ,0,0)\mathrm{exp}\{[\overline{b}_\lambda ^{in}+\overline{b}^{fin,LL}][{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{log}^3({\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}})]`$ (19)
$`+b_\lambda ^{in}[n_i\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]+b^{fin,00}[n_f\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]`$
$`b^{Yuk,00}[\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]+b_\lambda ^{ang,00}[\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_W^2}}]\}`$
$`+F^{RG}(\lambda ,0,0)`$
with $`n_i=3`$ or $`2`$, $`n_f=4`$ or $`2`$, as in the one loop case. The new quantities arising from Parameter Renormalization of high order diagrams, not defined in the one loop expression, are:

$$\overline{b}^{fin,TT}=\frac{\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0}{2\pi ^2s_\mathrm{w}^4}b^{WPR}=\frac{\alpha \stackrel{~}{\beta }_0}{\pi s_\mathrm{w}^2}$$
(20)
$$\overline{b}_L^{in}=\overline{b}^{fin,LL}=\frac{3\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0}{16\pi ^2s_\mathrm{w}^4}+\frac{\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0^{}}{16\pi ^2c_\mathrm{w}^4}\overline{b}_R^{in}=\frac{\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0^{}}{4\pi ^2c_\mathrm{w}^4}$$
(21)
The additional RG contribution to all orders are obtained explicitely using Eq.(17) in the SM or MSSM cases:

$$F^{RG}(L,\mu ,\mu )=(\frac{s}{4t})\mathrm{sin}\vartheta (\mu \mathrm{cos}\vartheta )\{g^2(s)[g^2]_{Born}\}$$
(22)
$`F^{RG}(L,0,0)=({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }{4}})\{g^2(s)+g^2(s)[g^2+g^2]_{Born}\}`$ (23)
$`F^{RG}(R,0,0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }{2}}\{g^2(s)[g^2]_{Born}\}`$ (24)
One can check that a first order expansion of Eq.(18,19) reproduces the one loop results. In particular for the $`W_TW_T`$ amplitudes one observes the cancellation of the single log associated to the outgoing $`W^+,W^{}`$ when adding the part coming from the exponential and the RG part.

### II.4 Observables

In this Section we summarize the definition of the various observables that will be considered in the analysis.

The unpolarized angular distribution is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{128\pi s}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\mu ,\mu ^{}}{}}|F(\lambda ,\mu ,\mu ^{})|^2`$ (25)
The angular distribution for longitudinally polarized W is obtained by reducing the sum over $`\mu `$, $`\mu ^{}`$ to the case $`\mu =\mu ^{}=0`$.

The left-right angular distribution is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{LR}}{d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{128\pi s}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\mu ^{}}{}}[|F(L,\mu ,\mu ^{})|^2|F(R,\mu ,\mu ^{})|^2]`$ (26)
The differential cross sections can be integrated with an angular cut-off $`|\mathrm{cos}\vartheta |\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{cut}`$ in the forward or backward cones:

$$_F_0^{\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{cut}}d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta ,_B_{\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{cut}}^0d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta $$
(27)
This leads to the cross sections

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle _F}+{\displaystyle _B}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta }}`$ (28)
$`\sigma _{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle _F}+{\displaystyle _B}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{LR}}{d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta }}`$ (29)
$`\sigma _{FB}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle _F}{\displaystyle _B}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\vartheta }}`$ (30)
and the related asymmetries

$$A_{FB}=\frac{\sigma _{FB}}{\sigma },A_{LR}=\frac{\sigma _{LR}}{\sigma }$$
(31)
The relative effect due to radiative corrections (treated in the one-loop approximation or by the resummation formula) is defined to be

$$\text{cross-sections}:\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma \frac{\sigma \sigma ^{Born}}{\sigma ^{Born}},\text{asymmetries}:\mathrm{\Delta }AAA^{Born}$$
(32)
In the high-energy limit ($`s\mathrm{}`$) the Born values of the above quantities are ($`\delta \mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{cut}`$)

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{192ss_W^4c_W^4}}\left[3(2348s_W^2+20s_W^4)\delta +(9+16s_W^212s_W^4)\delta ^3+48c_W^4\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\delta }{1\delta }}\right]`$
$`\sigma _{FB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{8ss_W^4}}\left[\delta ^22\mathrm{log}(1\delta ^2)\right]`$
$`\sigma _{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{192ss_W^4c_W^4}}\left[3(2348s_W^2+28s_W^4)\delta +(9+16s_W^24s_W^4)\delta ^3+48c_W^4\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\delta }{1\delta }}\right]`$
$`\sigma ^{\mathrm{long}.W}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2(14s_W^4)}{96ss_W^4c_W^4}}`$
After this, we hope not too long, technical presentation we are now ready to move to the explicit comparison of the relative effects in the two expansions. This will be done in the forthcoming Section III.

## III Comparison of the two expansions

Starting from the formulae given in the previous Section II, we have now computed the various electroweak logarithmic effects on the considered observables in the two approximate expansions, to subleading logarithmic accuracy, in an energy region between 500 GeV and 3 TeV, that should include the foreseen LC and CLIC c.m. energy domains. To simplify the presentation of our results, we have considered the known fact that the number of final longitudinal $`WW`$ pairs is much smaller than that of the transverse ones, that completely dominate the available statistics (leaving aside the technical difficulties of analyzing the final polarization). In this spirit, we shall present a detailed analysis for the unpolarized final $`WW`$ state, showing all the considered observables in this case in Fig. (1a,c,d). For sake of comparison with previous papers, we also draw in Fig. (1b) the plot representing the cross section for final longitudinal $`WW`$ pairs.

The results are given both for the SM and for the MSSM. From a glance to the different graphs, a number of features emerge. To proceed with order, it is more convenient to give a separate discussion of the three considered observables.

a) Cross sections. One sees from Fig. (1a) that the two approximate expansions for unpolarized $`WW`$ pairs are ”essentially” (i.e. within the assumed 1-2 percent accuracy) identical for c.m. energies below, roughly, 1 TeV. When the energy increases beyond this value, the difference between the two approximations becomes larger, reaching a dramatic (in our opinion) value of ten percent at about 3 TeV. We observe also quite a small difference between the SM and the MSSM effects in our considered logarithmic expansions, in agreement with the observation of Ref.Hahn  for what concerns the one-loop approximation.

As one sees from inspection of Fig. (1b) identical remarks strictly apply for the longitudinal $`WW`$ cross section. We can therefore conclude that for what concerns cross sections, at the subleading electroweak logarithmic accuracy, a one-loop expansion does not require extra corrections below one TeV, but appears to be drastically inadequate in the higher (2,3 TeV) c.m. energy domain.

b) Forward-backward asymmetry. As one immediately sees from Fig. (1c), the same conclusions given for the cross sections case are valid. In particular, at 3 TeV, the difference between the two approximations reaches a value of five percent, to be compared with a Born value of approximately 0.77 (with our choice of cut at 30 degrees). Again, no appreciable difference exists between the SM and the MSSM results.

c) Electron-positron longitudinal polarization asymmetry. This is the only case where, between the one-loop expansion and the resummed one, no appreciable difference exists in the full considered energy range (see Fig. (1d)). This is relatively simple to understand since this process is dominated by left-handed electron contributions, given the nature of the final state. In fact, not much information seems to be provided by a measurement of this observable, at least in the framework of a ”conventional” model like the MSSM.

## IV Conclusions

The main motivation of our work was that of examining the reliability of a one-loop expansion for the process $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}`$ in the MSSM (and also in the SM). The practical reason is that we do not see personally many chances of performing a two-loop calculation in this model (unless a dedicated effort is motivated and supported). Naively, one reason of worry would be the realization that the one-loop effect is ”large”, say beyond the qualitative ten percent threshold, that might induce the feeling of a two-loop effect possibly beyond the one-two percent limit. In this respect we must make a preliminary distinction between two different types of one-loop effects. The first ones are the ”classical” QED ones. In the case of $`WW`$ production, they are known BD ; Hahn  to be large and in some cases dominating the overall correction. However, they are supposedly under control, and thus the largeness of their size does not generate particular worries since an established resummation procedure exists. In addition they are purely standard, i.e. the same in SM and in MSSM. A quite different situation characterizes the ”genuine” electroweak effects. For the latter a complete resummation procedure of the one-loop contribution to all orders is not known at the moment. Thus, the existence of large one-loop corrections might lead to the feeling that unknown higher order effects might be relevant. In the case of $`WW`$ cross sections, the Sudakov effects at one loop become indeed, rather quickly, ”large”. As one sees, they reach already the fifteen percent level at 1 TeV. The technical reason of this fact, which is not shared by other (fermion, scalar) final states, is not difficult to understand from our formulae. In fact, for final $`W`$ pairs, the coefficient $`b^{fin,TT}`$ only contains a (negative) squared logarithm that is not reduced by a corresponding linear logarithm like for other final state processes. This explains the quick rise of the negative effect, a feature that would reappear for final chargino production NR . In particular, at 3 TeV, the size of the one-loop term reaches the $`50`$ percent value, that seems, honestly, disturbingly large. To a minor level, an analogous feature characterizes the considered forward-backward asymmetry.

In such a situation, the only (to our knowledge) control is offered by the existing partial resummation procedures. For the MSSM case, we have used the only one that we are aware of revmel  (therefore we cannot compare it with other proposals). We remind the reader that both the one-loop Sudakov expansion and the fully resummed one are valid to subleading logarithmic accuracy. Within this limitation, we have verified that, below 1 TeV, no ”dangerous” (i.e. at the one-two percent level) difference exists between the two approximations, while large discrepancies arise at higher energies. We can conclude that, to subleading electroweak logarithmic accuracy, a one-loop calculation is fully adequate below one TeV, and certainly unsatisfactory at higher energies. The next remaining step is to enlarge this statement to include a complete one-loop calculation. In our opinion, this conclusion is, at least, rather reasonable, given the fact that the difference between the two approaches (modulo the known QED corrections) is only due to next-to subleading (e.g. constant) terms. From our previous experience in the case of final charged Higgs production HH , we expect that such terms are reasonably small and sufficient to provide an adequate description of the process, when added to the logarithmic ones. Certainly, this statement needs a professional support. In practice, this would be provided by the comparison of a complete one-loop program with a logarithmic expansion that includes e.g. an extra constant term, as we did thoroughly in Ref.HH . This is not beyond a ’reasonable” effort. We consider this suggestion as a much simpler possibility compared to the (tough!) alternative of performing a two-loop calculation, and look forward to its completion in a reasonably near future.

For what concerns the sensitivity of $`WW`$ production to the genuine SUSY component of the MSSM, our conclusion is that, at least to subleading logarithmic accuracy, this appears to be rather small (both at the one-loop and also at the resummed level) in the full energy range that we have considered. In fact, at this level, the only difference between the SM and the MSSM is due to the change of the coefficients $`n_{i,f}`$ of the linear logarithms, as explained in Section 2. Although we cannot exclude a higher sensitivity in the next-to subleading terms where the parameters of the model will actually enter, it appears from the previous Hahn analysis Hahn  that, at least until 1 TeV, the complete calculation retains this property. This could indicate, in case of SUSY discovery, that $`WW`$ production might be more relevant for detecting possible signals of different types of sophisticated new physics models.


format: text

text:
# Leakage Effect on 𝐽/𝜓 𝑝_𝑡 Distributions in Different Centrality Bins for Pb - Pb Collisions at E/A = 160 GeV

## Abstract

A transport approach including a leakage effect for $`J/\psi `$’s in the transverse phase space is used to calculate the ratios between the $`J/\psi `$ transverse momentum distributions in several centrality bins for Pb-Pb collisions at E/A = 160 GeV. From the comparison with the CERN-SPS data, where the centrality is characterized by the transverse energy $`E_t`$, the leakage effect is extremely important in the region of high transverse momentum and high transverse energy, and both the threshold and the comover models can describe the ratio well for all centrality bins except the most central one ($`E_t<100`$ GeV), for which the comover model calculation is considerably better than the threshold one.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐀𝐂𝐒}:\mathbf{25.75}.𝐪,\mathbf{12.38}.\mathrm{𝐌𝐡}`$

Relativistic heavy ion collisions may be the only way to create the extreme condition for producing a new state of matter — Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP). Among the possible signatures suggested to identify the existence of QGP, the $`J/\psi `$ suppression proposed by Matsui and Satz is considered as a direct one of deconfinement phase transition. The discovery of anomalous $`J/\psi `$ suppression in Pb - Pb collisions in 1996 has been one of the highlights of the research with relativistic nuclear collisions at SPS. Since different models, with and without the assumption of QGP, can describe the observed suppression, it is still not yet clear if the suppression means the discovery of QGP. Recently, the NA50 collaboration has presented the final analysis of the $`J/\psi `$ transverse momentum distribution in Pb - Pb collisions at E/A = 160 GeV. The mean squared transverse momentum $`p_t^2`$ as a function of the centrality of the collisions first increases and then becomes flat when the centrality increases. The understanding of this saturation of $`p_t^2`$ in central collisions needs the consideration of time structure of the anomalous suppression. With the idea of leakage, which has already been considered more than 10 years ago (c.f. also more recent works), the anomalous suppression is not an instantaneous process, but takes a certain time. During this time the $`J/\psi `$’s with high transverse momenta may leak out of the source of the anomalous suppression. As a consequence, low $`p_t`$ $`J/\psi `$’s are absorbed preferentially, and the mean $`p_t`$ of the survived $`J/\psi `$’s in central collisions will not drop down but become flat. From the comparison of the theoretical calculations using two different models, the threshold and comover models, with the data, the average anomalous suppression time $`t_A`$ is extracted to be $`34`$ fm/c for central Pb - Pb collisions. Obviously, the leakage mechanism affects mainly the high $`p_t`$ $`J/\psi `$’s, the mean values $`p_t<1.2`$ GeV/c and $`p_t^2<2`$ (GeV/c)2 for Pb - Pb collisions can not reflect the leakage effect sufficiently. In order to see the leakage effect more clearly, we calculate in this paper the $`J/\psi `$ $`p_t`$ distributions in different centrality bins, and compare them with the data of NA50. We will focus our attention on the region $`1<p_t<3`$ GeV/c for central collisions where the leakage effect and anomalous suppression are both important, and the error bars of the data are small.

$`J/\psi `$’s produced in a nucleus-nucleus collision experience first normal suppression via inelastic $`J/\psi N`$ collisions and show normal broadening of $`p_t^2`$ above $`p_t^2_{NN}`$ via gluon rescattering. A gluon from a projectile nucleon and a gluon from a target nucleon fuse to form a $`J/\psi `$ at a point with space coordinates $`(\stackrel{}{s},z_A)`$ in the rest frame of the target A and $`(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{s},z_B)`$ in the rest frame of the projectile B, where $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ is the impact parameter for the BA collision. On its way out, the $`J/\psi `$ experiences the thickness $`T_A(\stackrel{}{s},z_A,\mathrm{})`$ and $`T_B(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{s},\mathrm{},z_B)`$ in the nuclei A and B, and is suppressed with an effective absorption cross section $`\sigma _{abs}`$, where the thickness function $`T`$ is defined as $`T(\stackrel{}{s},z_1,z_2)=_{z_1}^{z_2}𝑑z\rho (\stackrel{}{s},z)`$ with $`\rho _{A,B}`$ being the density of nuclei A and B. Before the fusion, the two gluons traverse thicknesses $`T_A(\stackrel{}{s},\mathrm{},z_A)`$ and $`T_B(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{s},z_B,\mathrm{})`$ of nuclear matter in A and B, and obtain additional transverse momentum via $`gN`$ collisions. Neglecting effects of formation time, one has after the normal suppression the $`J/\psi `$ distribution function $`f_N`$ in the transverse phase space at given $`\stackrel{}{b}`$,

$`f_N(\stackrel{}{p}_t|\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})={\displaystyle }dz_Adz_B\rho _A(\stackrel{}{s},z_A)\rho _B(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{s},z_B)\times `$ (1)
$`e^{\sigma _{abs}\left(T_A(\stackrel{}{s},z_A,\mathrm{})+T_B(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{s},\mathrm{},z_B)\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_t^2_N}}e^{p_t^2/p_t^2_N}`$ (2)
with

$`p_t^2_N(\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s},z_A,z_B)=p_t^2_{NN}+`$ (3)
$`a_{gN}\rho _0^1\left(T_A(\stackrel{}{s},\mathrm{},z_A)+T_B(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{s},z_B,\mathrm{})\right),`$ (4)
where we have assumed a Gaussian $`p_t`$ dependence. The constants $`\sigma _{abs}`$ and $`a_{gN}`$ are usually adjusted to the data from pA collisions where $`J/\psi `$’s experience only normal suppression.

Anomalous suppression is attributed to the action on the $`J/\psi `$ by the mostly baryon free phase of partons and/or hadrons which is formed after the nuclear overlap. We define $`t=0`$ as the time when the normal suppression and normal generation of $`p_t^2`$ have ceased, and describe the time evolution of the $`J/\psi `$ density $`f(\stackrel{}{p}_t,t|\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})`$ in the transverse phase space by a transport equation

$$\frac{f}{t}+\stackrel{}{v}_t\stackrel{}{}_sf=\alpha f$$
(5)
with the initial condition

$$f(\stackrel{}{p}_t,0|\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})=f_N(\stackrel{}{p}_t,\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s}).$$
(6)
The second term on the left handside of the transport equation arises from the free streaming of the $`J/\psi `$ with transverse velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}_t=\stackrel{}{p}_t/\sqrt{p_t^2+m_{J/\psi }^2}`$, and the loss term is due to anomalous suppression. The function $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{p}_t,t|\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})`$ contains all details about the mechanism of anomalous suppression.

The transport equation (5) can be solved analytically with the result

$$f(\stackrel{}{p}_t,t|\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})=e^{_0^t𝑑t^{}\alpha (\stackrel{}{p}_t,t^{}|\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{v}_t(tt^{}))}f_N(\stackrel{}{p}_t|\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{v}_tt).$$
(7)
If the anomalous suppression ceases at time $`t_f`$, $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{p}_t,t>t_f|\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})=0`$, the observed yield $`Y`$ as a function of transverse momentum $`p_t`$ and transverse energy $`E_t`$ can be related to the phase space density $`f`$ via

$`Y(p_t,E_t)=`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{b}d^2\stackrel{}{s}d^2\stackrel{}{p}_tP(E_t|b)f(\stackrel{}{p}_t,t_f|\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})\delta (p_t\sqrt{p_x^2+p_y^2})}.`$ (9)
Here, $`P(E_t|b)`$ describes the distribution of transverse energy $`E_t`$ in events with a given impact parameter $`\stackrel{}{b}`$. It is chosen as a Gaussian distribution

$$P(E_t|b)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi q^2aN_p(b)}}e^{\frac{(E_tE_t(b))^2}{2q^2aN_p(b)}}$$
(10)
with the number of participant nucleons defined as

$`N_p(b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{s}n_p(\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})},`$ (11)
$`n_p(\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})`$ $`=`$ $`T_A(\stackrel{}{s},\mathrm{},\mathrm{})\left(1e^{\sigma _{NN}T_B(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{s},\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}\right)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`T_B(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{s},\mathrm{},\mathrm{})\left(1e^{\sigma _{NN}T_A(\stackrel{}{s},\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}\right),`$ (13)
$`E_t(b)`$ $`=`$ $`qN_p(b),`$ (14)
and $`a=1.27,q=0.274`$ GeV and $`\sigma _{NN}=32`$ mb for Pb - Pb collisions at SPS energy.

In order to see clearly the leakage effect which is important for the $`J/\psi `$’s with high transverse momenta produced in the events with high transverse energy, we consider the ratio between the $`J/\psi `$ $`p_t`$ distributions in the $`E_t`$ bin $`i`$ and in the $`E_t`$ bin $`j`$,

$$R_{i/j}(p_t)=\frac{_{\mathrm{\Delta }E_t^i}𝑑E_tY(p_t,E_t)/N_{\mathrm{\Delta }E_t^i}^{DY}}{_{\mathrm{\Delta }E_t^j}𝑑E_tY(p_t,E_t)/N_{\mathrm{\Delta }E_t^j}^{DY}}.$$
(15)
To compare the ratio with the experimental data, we have normalized the distributions to the number of Drell-Yan pairs in the same $`E_t`$ bins,

$`N_{\mathrm{\Delta }E_t^i}^{DY}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }E_t^i}}dE_t{\displaystyle }d^2\stackrel{}{b}d^2\stackrel{}{s}dz_Adz_BP(E_t|b)\times `$ (17)
$`\rho _A(\stackrel{}{s},z_A)\rho _B(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{s},z_B).`$
Since the physical origin of anomalous suppression is not yet clear, we calculate the ratio $`R`$ for two rather different scenarios: Instantaneous absorption involving a threshold in the energy density and continuous absorption by comovers.

We begin with the threshold model and use the approach by Blaizot et. al. for simplicity. The suppression function in this approach can be recovered within the transport formalism (7) by setting

$$\alpha (\stackrel{}{p}_t,t|\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})=\alpha _0\theta (n_p(\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})n_c)\delta (t)$$
(18)
and taking the limit $`\alpha _0\mathrm{}`$. $`J/\psi `$’s are totally and instantaneously destroyed if the energy density which is directly proportional to the participant density $`n_p`$ is larger than a critical density, and nothing happens elsewhere. While the threshold approach successfully describes the data in the full $`E_t`$ range of the $`J/\psi `$ suppression after the only one free parameter, $`n_c`$, is adjusted, the predictions for $`p_t^2(E_t)`$ are significantly below the data, especially in the high $`E_t`$ region.

It is difficult to understand that the anomalous suppression happens instantaneously at time $`t=0`$. The sudden suppression (18) was changed to a continuous suppression between times $`t_0`$ and $`t_1`$,

$$\alpha (\stackrel{}{p}_t,t|\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})=\frac{\alpha _0}{t_1t_0}\theta (n_p(\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})n_c)\theta (t_1t)\theta (tt_0).$$
(19)
From the comparison of the yield $`Y(E_t)`$ and mean transverse momentum $`p_t^2(E_t)`$ with the data, the average anomalous suppression time $`t_A`$ was found to be a function of $`E_t`$. It increases from $`0`$ to about $`4`$ fm/c when $`E_t`$ increases from $`0`$ to the maximum ($`140`$ GeV) for Pb - Pb collisions.

With the parameters $`\sigma _{abs}=6.4`$ mb and $`n_c=3.75`$ fm-2 for the suppression and $`p_t^2_{NN}=1.11`$ (GeV/c)2 and $`a_{gN}=0.081`$ (GeV/c)2 fm-1 for the mean transverse momentum, we calculated the ratios $`R_{i/j}(p_t)`$. We also accounted for the transverse energy fluctuations which have been shown to be significant for the explanation of the sharp drop of $`J/\psi `$ suppression in the domain of very large $`E_t`$ values, by replacing $`n_p`$ by $`\frac{E_t}{E_t}n_p`$ where $`E_t`$ is the mean transverse energy at given $`b`$. For the comparison with the data of Pb - Pb collisions, we consider five $`E_t`$ bins with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_t^i=[5,34],[34,60],[60,80],[80,100],[100,140]`$ GeV corresponding to $`i=1,2,3,4,5`$, respectively. The theoretical results $`R_{i/1}(p_t)`$ with $`i=2,3,4,5`$ together with the data are shown in Fig. 1. The dashed lines indicate the results with normal suppression only. Since the nuclear absorption deviates from the data and becomes saturated above $`E_t40`$ GeV, the calculated ratios $`R_{i/1}`$ are always above the data for any values of $`p_t`$ and in any $`E_t`$ bin. The dotted lines are calculated with the original Blaizot approach (18) without considering leakage effect ($`\stackrel{}{v}_t=0`$ in (7)), and the solid lines are obtained by taking the average anomalous suppression time $`t_A=0,1,2,3,4`$ fm corresponding to the $`E_t`$ bins $`i=1,2,3,4,5`$, respectively. It is clear that the leakage effect becomes more and more important when the anomalous suppression time increases and/or the transverse momentum $`p_t`$ increases. While the instantaneous threshold approach, namely the dotted lines, can describe the data in the region $`p_t<3`$ GeV/c when $`E_t`$ is not high enough, the calculated ratio $`R_{5/1}`$ deviates from the data clearly. Due to the leakage effect reflected in the transport approach (7), high transverse momentum $`J/\psi `$’s may escape the anomalous suppression. This is the reason why the solid line is always above the dotted line in any $`E_t`$ bin. When the degree of centrality is low, the system is difficult to reach the critical density $`n_c`$, the anomalous suppression is not important, and then the leakage effect is weak. With increasing centrality, more anomalous suppression happens and more $`J/\psi `$’s leak out of the suppression region. For the $`E_t`$ bins $`1`$ and $`2`$, almost no leakage happens, the solid and dotted lines coincide for $`R_{2/1}`$. For $`R_{3/1}`$ the leakage is still not important. However, when the centrality increases further, the leakage effect leads to a remarkable difference between the solid and dotted lines. For $`R_{4/1}`$ and $`R_{5/1}`$ the leakage improves considerably the threshold approach. Due to the big error bars of the data above $`p_t`$ around $`3`$ GeV/c, it is difficult to judge the leakage effect in the very high $`p_t`$ region from the comparison with the data.

We now turn to the comover model. The comoving partons and/or hadrons lead to a continuous $`J/\psi `$ absorption of long duration due to inelastic collisions with the comoving particles. As a representative model, we use the approaches by Capella et al. and Kharzeev et. al..The absorption term $`\alpha `$ in the transport equation (5) takes the form

$$\alpha (\stackrel{}{p}_t,t|\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})=\sigma _{co}\frac{n_c(\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})}{t}\theta \left(\frac{n_c(\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})}{n_f}t_0t\right)\theta (tt_0),$$
(20)
where $`\sigma _{co}`$ is the cross section of $`J/\psi `$-comover interaction, $`n_c`$ the comover density at initial time $`t_0`$. The absorption

by comovers starts at $`t_0`$ and ends at $`t_1`$ when the comover density $`n_c(\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})t_0/t_1`$ has reached a value $`n_f`$ independent of $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{s}`$. Unlike the threshold scenario for which we have to introduce a time structure (19) to discuss the leakage effect, the comover scenario contains a definite time structure for anomalous suppression and it is not necessary to introduce any new parameter. Taking into account the transverse energy fluctuations by replacing $`n_c`$ by $`\frac{E_t}{E_t}n_c`$, and the transverse energy loss induced by the $`J/\psi `$ trigger by rescaling $`E_t`$ by a factor $`\frac{n_p2}{n_p}`$, which have been shown to be significant for the explanation of the sharp decrease of $`J/\psi `$ suppression at $`E_t>100`$ GeV, and using the parameters $`n_{co}(\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s})=1.5n_p(\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{s}),t_0=1`$ fm, $`n_f=1`$ fm-2, $`\sigma _{abs}=4.5`$ mb and $`\sigma _{co}=1`$ mb, the calculated $`p_t^2(E_t)`$ in the transport approach including leakage effect agrees well with the data, and the average time for comover action is $`t_A=3.5`$ fm/c. With the same parameters, the calculated ratios $`R_{i/1}`$ for $`i=2,3,4,5`$ are shown in Fig. 2. Again the result with only normal suppression deviates from the data. Compared with the threshold scenario, the prediction with comover absorption but without considering leakage effect has a better agreement with the data. Since the comover absorption is a continuous process, and it can happen in the events with low centrality, the leakage effect starts to change the suppression ratio at low $`E_t`$ and is almost $`E_t`$ independent. It is clear that the leakage effect leads to a better agreement between the comover model and the data. From the comparison with the threshold scenario, the result of the comover scenario looks more close to the experimental data.

With the general transport equation proposed in ref. which describes the time evolution of the $`J/\psi `$’s during anomalous suppression including leakage effect, we calculated within the threshold and comover models the ratio $`R_{i/1}(p_t)`$ between the $`J/\psi `$ $`p_t`$ distribution in the higher $`E_t`$ bin $`i`$ and the same distribution in the lowest $`E_t`$ bin. Our motivation is to study the leakage effect in high $`p_t`$ and high $`E_t`$ region where the anomalous suppression is most important. We found that in this region the leakage effect leads to a better agreement with the data for the two models. The results support the idea that the anomalous suppression happens on average at $`34`$ fm/c after the normal suppression ends. From the comparison of the two very different models, our calculation with the mechanism of continuous comover action over a comparably long time can better describe the ratios for all $`E_t`$ bins.

Acknowledgments: We are grateful to Prof. Joerg Huefner for many stimulating discussions and careful reading of the manuscript. This work has been supported by the grants NSFC19925519, 10135030, and G2000077407.


text:
# Precision Electroweak Constraints on Hidden Local Symmetries

## 1 Generalized BESS

In this talk we discuss the phenomenology of models with replicated electroweak gauge symmetries. The general framework we use is based on the gauge structure $`[SU(2)\mathrm{or}U(1)]\times U(1)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$, and is conveniently illustrated in the figure below. This figure is drawn using “moose” notation,

(1)
in which the circles represent gauge groups with the specified gauge coupling, and the solid lines represent separate $`(SU(2)\times SU(2)/SU(2))`$ nonlinear sigma model fields which break the gauged or global symmetries to which they are attached. The solid circles represent $`SU(2)`$ groups, with a “2” denoting a gauged $`SU(2)`$ and the “1” a global SU(2) in which only a U(1) subgroup has been gauged.

For convenience, the coupling constants of the gauge theories will be specified by

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{}=\frac{e}{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi },g^{}=\frac{e}{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi },g=\frac{e}{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\omega },\stackrel{~}{g}=\frac{e}{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\omega },$$
(2)
and the $`f`$-constants (the analogs of $`f_\pi `$ in QCD) of the nonlinear sigma models by

$$\frac{f}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha },v,\frac{f}{\mathrm{cos}\alpha }.$$
(3)
As we will see, the Lagrangian parameters $`e`$, $`\theta `$, and $`v`$, will be approximately equal to the electric charge, weak mixing angle, and Higgs expectation value in the one-doublet standard model. The scale $`f`$ sets the masses of the extra gauge bosons, and the theory reduces to the standard model in the limit $`f\mathrm{}`$, while the angle $`\alpha `$ allows us to independently vary the breaking of the duplicated $`SU(2)`$ or $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetries. Finally, the angles $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$ determine the couplings of the gauge bosons which become massive at scale $`f`$.

The symmetry structure of this model is similar to that proposed in the BESS (Breaking Electroweak Symmetry Strongly) model, an effective Lagrangian description motivated by strong electroweak symmetry breaking. This model is in turn an application of “hidden local symmetry” to electroweak physics. Accordingly, we refer to this paradigm as “generalized BESS.” The symmetry structure in the limit $`f\mathrm{}`$ is precisely that expected in a “technicolor” model, and the theory has a custodial symmetry in the limit $`g^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{}`$ go to zero.

Generalized BESS is the simplest model of an extended electroweak gauge symmetry incorporating both replicated $`SU(2)`$ and $`U(1)`$ gauge groups. As such the electroweak sector of a number of models in the literature form special cases, including Noncommuting ETC, topcolor, and electroweak $`SU(3)`$. The general properties of precision electroweak constraints on these models can correspondingly be viewed as special cases of what follows.

## 2 Low-Energy Interactions

Constraints on models with extended electroweak symmetries arise both from low-energy and Z-pole measurements. The most sensitive low-energy measurements arise from measurements of the muon lifetime (which are used to determine $`G_F`$), atomic parity violation (APV), and neutrino-nucleon scattering. In the usual fashion, we may summarize the low-energy interactions in terms of four-fermion operators. The form of these interactions will depend, however, on the fermion charge assignments. For simplicity, in the remainder of this talk we consider models in which the fermion charge assignments are flavor universal. To illustrate the model-dependence of the results, we consider two examples.

First, we consider the case in which the ordinary fermions are charged only under the two groups at the middle of the moose

$$\text{}.$$
(4)
In this case the charged current interactions may be computed to be

$$L^{CC}=\frac{2}{v^2}J^{\mu +}J_\mu ^{},$$
(5)
and the neutral current interactions

$$L^{NC}=\frac{2}{v^2}(J_3^\mu Q^\mu \mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^2\frac{2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha }{f^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^4\omega Q^\mu Q_\mu .$$
(6)
In these expressions, the currents $`J_{\pm ,3}^\mu `$ and $`Q^\mu `$ are the conventional weak and electromagnetic currents. From these, we see that the strength of $`G_F`$, APV, and neutrino scattering is determined by $`v`$ in the usual way. Furthermore, comparing the two equations, we see that the strength of the charged and neutral current interactions, the so-called low-energy $`\rho `$ parameter, is precisely one (at tree-level). This last fact is a direct consequence of the Georgi-Weinberg neutral current theorem.

As an alternative, consider the case in which the $`SU(2)`$ charges of the ordinary fermions arise from transforming under the gauge group at the end of the moose

$$\text{}.$$
(7)
A calculation of the charged current interactions yields

$$L^{CC}=2\left(\frac{1}{v^2}+\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha }{f^2}\right)J^{\mu +}J_\mu ^{},$$
(8)
while the neutral current interactions are summarized by

$$L^{NC}=\frac{2}{v^2}(J_3^\mu Q^\mu \mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^2\frac{2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha }{f^2}(J_3^\mu \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\omega Q^\mu )^2.$$
(9)
Several points in this expression are of particular note: first, the value of $`G_F`$ as inferred from muon decay is no longer related simply to $`v`$. As we shall see in the next section, this ultimately will give rise to corrections to electroweak observables of order $`(v/f)^2`$ and unsuppressed by any ratios of coupling constants. Second, unlike the previous case, the strength of low-energy charged- and neutral-current interactions are no longer the same. It is interesting to note, however, that the strengths of the $`J_3^2`$ and $`J^+J_{}`$ portions of the interactions are, however, the same – this is a reflection of the approximate custodial symmetry of the underlying model.

## 3 Z-Pole Constraints - General Structure

Many of the most significant constraints on physics beyond the standard model arise from precise measurements at the Z-pole. To interpret these measurements, we must compute the masses $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons and their couplings to ordinary fermions in terms of the Lagrangian parameters. For generalized BESS, we find the gauge-boson masses

$$M_W^2=\frac{e^2v^2}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\left(1\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^4\omega \frac{v^2}{f^2}\right)+O\left(\frac{v^4}{f^4}\right),$$
(10)
and

$$M_Z^2=\frac{e^2v^2}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\left(1(\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^4\omega +\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^4\omega )\frac{v^2}{f^2}\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(11)
From the expression for $`M_Z^2`$ and the calculations summarized in the previous section, we immediately see that there is a major difference in the structure of corrections to the standard model between cases I and II: corrections to the standard model relation between $`G_F`$, $`\alpha `$, $`M_Z^2`$, and the appropriately defined weak mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ are generically of order $`v^2/f^2`$ in case II, but is of order $`(\mathrm{sin}^4\omega ,\mathrm{sin}^4\varphi )v^2/f^2`$ in case I. As a consequence, viewing the predictions of generalized BESS in terms of corrections to the corresponding standard model results, the corrections to standard model predictions in case I are (potentially) suppressed by ratios of coupling constants relative to the size of corrections in case II. This leads generically to weaker constraints in case I models.

In what follows, we will concentrate on models in the category of case I, in which the fermions are charged only under the gauge groups in the “middle” of the moose diagram. In order to make predictions for electroweak observables, we need to compute the couplings of the ordinary fermions to the light gauge boson eigenstates. In the case of the $`W`$ we find that the couplings to the left-handed fermions are

$$\frac{e}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\left(1\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^4\omega \frac{v^2}{f^2}\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(12)
and for the $`Z`$ we find the couplings

$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }}\left[1(\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^4\varphi +\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^4\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{f^2}}\right]T_3`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }}\left(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^4\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{f^2}}\right)Q.`$ (13)
Comparing to the computed gauge-boson masses we see that, for case I, all corrections to standard model predictions may be expressed in terms of two combinations of Lagrangian parameters:

$$c_1=\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^4\omega \frac{v^2}{f^2},c_2=\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^4\varphi \frac{v^2}{f^2}.$$
(14)
This allows us to compute bounds on model parameters in terms of fits to $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$, greatly simplifying the calculations.

Finally, while we will not explicitly display the results in case II, a similar calculation shows that corrections to gauge-boson couplings in this case are proportional to $`(\mathrm{sin}^2\omega ,\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi )v^2/f^2`$.

## 4 Flavor-Universal Results

From the calculations above, we may compute the values of all precisely measured electroweak quantities in terms of the Lagrangian parameters given above. Using the procedure outlined in Burgess et. al., we perform fits to the electroweak observables listed in the most recent compilation by the LEP Electroweak Working Group, which include Z-pole observables as well as the width of the $`W`$ boson, and low-energy atomic parity violation and neutrino-nucleon scattering. The 68%, 95%, and 99% confidence level fits for the parameters $`c_{1,2}`$ is shown in Figure 1.

For a given value of $`\alpha `$, we may unfold these constraints to produce a 95% lower bound on $`f`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{sin}\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$. A sense of the reach of these bounds is given in Figure 2, plotted for $`\alpha =\pi /4`$. For typical values of $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\omega `$, the bounds on the scale $`f`$ range from a few TeV.

Many of the models cited above correspond to the extra gauge groups being weak, $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ or $`\mathrm{sin}\omega `$ of order 1, in which case the bounds on $`f`$ are of order 10 TeV. Formally the corrections vanish when the couplings of the extra gauge groups become strong, that is in the limit $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\omega 0`$. The phenomenologically interesting question is whether there are any interesting models corresponding to this case, in which case there may be interesting structure at relatively low scales!

## Acknowledgments

E.H.S. and R.S.C. thank to Koichi Yamawaki and the rest of the organizing committee and staff for their hospitality and support.