text:
# Properties of a Dilute Bose Gas near a Feshbach Resonance

## I Introduction

Feshbach resonanceFeshbach  has been observed in 23NaInouye , 85RbCornish , and a few other alkali systems. In these systems, two atoms can collide and fall into a molecular state with a different spin. The scattering length can be tuned by changing the energy difference between the atomic and molecular states through a magnetic field. In the 85Rb system, the scattering length was tuned to the negative region to study the critical particle number of the condensateRoberts . In the positive region, an unusual processes of particle loss were observedClaussen . Recently oscillations between atomic and molecular states were discoveredDonley .

One of the motivations to study Feshbach resonance is to create a Bose system with a large and positive scattering length $`a`$. In the traditional theory of a dilute Bose gasLee ; Beliaev ; Hugenholtz , every physical quantity is expressed as a power series in the gas parameter $`\sqrt{8\pi na^3}`$, with higher order terms coming from high order perturbations. But the perturbation breaks down when the density $`n`$ is of the order of $`1/a^3`$. It is a challenge to find out what happens to the system beyond the dilute region. In recent experimentsDonley , $`na^3`$ can be tuned as high as $`0.5`$.

However, even in the dilute region $`na^31`$, the system with a Feshbach resonance is different from the system without a Feshbach resonance because of the molecular states. The observation of oscillations between the atomic and molecular statesDonley  indicates macroscopic occupation of molecular states. In fact, in addition to photoassociationWynar ; Mckenzie , Feshbach resonance is considered as another method to study the mixture of atomic and molecular condensates.

In Ref.Timmermans , a two-channel model was constructed to study Feshbach resonance, with the Hamiltonian given by

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\psi ^{}\psi +\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m}\varphi ^{}\varphi +\frac{g_0}{2}\psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\psi ^2\gamma (\varphi ^{}\psi ^2+h.c.)+h\varphi ^{}\varphi ,$$
(1)
where $`\varphi `$ is the molecular field operator and $`\psi `$ is the atomic field operator. The magnetic detuning energy is given by $`h`$. The coupling constant of atomic fields is given by $`g_0`$. The coupling constant between atomic and molecular states is given by $`\gamma `$. The sign of $`\gamma `$ is chosen to be positive by gauge transformation.

Most studiesTimmermans ; Heinzen ; Cusack ; Calsamiglia  of this model have been focused on condensate properties. When multiple modes were included, the condensates were found to be depleted over timeGoral . In Ref.Holland , a Hartree-Fock method was used to take into account the contribution from atom pairs with opposite momentum, and the dynamics of the correlation between the condensates and atom pairs was studied numerically. However some properties of this model such as the complete excitation spectrum and the decay process are still unclear. In this paper, we study these problems in the dilute region where the scattering length $`a`$ is much bigger than the scattering length far off the resonance $`a_0`$ but much smaller than the interparticle distance, $`a_0a1/\sqrt[3]{n}`$. A simple saddle-point method is developed to handle this case.

## II Condensate properties

In the two-channel system, the numbers of atoms and molecules are not constants. It is easier to work in the grand canonical ensemble with the grand thermodynamical potential given by

$$F=H\mu (\psi ^{}\psi +2\varphi ^{}\varphi ),$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. At zero temperature in the dilute region, both atoms and molecules condense. The dominant contribution to the grand potential comes from the condensation, given by

$$F_0=\frac{g_0}{2}|\psi _0|^4\gamma (\varphi _0^{}\psi _0^2+c.c.)+h|\varphi _0|^2\mu (|\psi _0|^2+2|\varphi _0|^2),$$
(3)
where $`\psi _0`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ are the expectation values of the atomic and molecular fields. The values of $`\psi _0`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ are determined from the saddle-point equations given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_0}{\psi _0}}`$ $`=`$ $`(g_0|\psi _0|^22\gamma \varphi _0\mu )\psi _0^{}=0,`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_0}{\varphi _0}}`$ $`=`$ $`(h2\mu )\varphi _0^{}\gamma \psi _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0.`$ (5)
In the region with positive scattering lengths, $`h<0`$ and $`\mu >0`$, the nontrivial solution of the above equations is given by

$`\psi _0^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{g_{\mathrm{eff}}}},`$ (6)
$`\varphi _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \psi _0^2}{h2\mu }},`$ (7)
where $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}=g_02\gamma ^2/(h2\mu )`$. This solution is a minimum of the grand potential in the subspace of $`\psi _0`$ and a maximum in the subspace of $`\varphi _0`$ because molecules have lower energy than atoms. It is dynamically stable in the condensate spaceTimmermans .

Compared to the traditional theory, the relation between the chemical potential and the atomic condensate density given by Eq.(6) remains the same, with $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ now as the effective coupling constant of the atoms. The scattering length is proportional to the effective coupling constant,

$$a=mg_{\mathrm{eff}}/(4\pi \mathrm{}^2)=a_0(1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{h2\mu }),$$
(8)
where the scattering length in the absence of the resonance is given by $`a_0=mg_0/(4\pi \mathrm{}^2)`$, and the constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2\gamma ^2/g_0`$. The scattering length in the form of Eq.(8) have been observed in the experimentsInouye ; Donley .

In the dilute region, the interparticle distance is much larger than any other length scale. Since the chemical potential $`\mu `$ is a function of the atomic condensate density, the absolute value of the detuning energy $`|h|`$ is much larger than the chemical potential $`\mu `$. As a consequence, the molecular condensate density is much less than the atomic condensate density,

$$\frac{\varphi _0^2}{\psi _0^2}\frac{\gamma ^2\psi _0^2}{h^2}<\frac{\mu }{2|h|}1.$$
(9)
These condensate properties are consistent with the findings in Ref.Timmermans .

As shown in the next section, due to the coupling between atoms and molecules, the total molecule density is bigger than the molecular condensate density by a factor of $`1/Z`$ as given in Eq.(20), because the molecular eigenstates also contains atom pairs. However, in the dilute region, the total molecule density is still much smaller than the atomic condensate density. The ratio of the molecule density to the atom density $`n_m/n_a`$ is approximately given by

$$\frac{n_m}{n_a}\frac{\gamma ^2\psi _0^2}{Zh^2}\pi na^3.$$
(10)
## III Excitations and quantum depletion

In the dilute region, the system contains two types of excitations, the molecular excitation and the atomic excitation. The bare energy of a molecule is given by the detuning energy $`h`$. The coupling to the atomic states strongly renormalizes the molecule energy, and the molecular eigenstate becomes a superposition of the bare molecular state and pairing states of atoms. This renormalization can be easily demonstrated in the vacuum case where there are few particles.

In the vacuum, at zero temperature, the propagator of the molecular field is given by

$$G_m(𝐪,\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{ϵ_q}{2}h+2\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_m(𝐪,\mathrm{\Omega })+i\delta },$$
(11)
and the propagator of the atomic field is given by

$$G_a(𝐤,\omega )=\frac{1}{\omega ϵ_k+\mu +i\delta },$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m(𝐪,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the self energy of the molecular propagator generated by the coupling between atoms and molecules,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m(𝐪,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`2i\gamma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}G_a(𝐤,\omega )G_a(𝐪𝐤,\mathrm{\Omega }\omega )}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`2\gamma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }ϵ_kϵ_{𝐤𝐪}+2\mu +i\delta }},`$ (14)
and $`ϵ_k=\mathrm{}^2k^2/(2m)`$.

There is an unphysical ultra-violet divergence in the integral in Eq.(14). As shown in many examples in the effective field theory, the bare parameters are often divergent and the physical parameters are always finite. The divergence from the perturbation can be removed by introducing a divergent counter term in the Hamiltonian. (In the context of a dilute Bose gas without a Feshbach resonance, see Ref.Braaten .) Here we regularize the divergence by introducing a divergent part of the bare molecule energy $`\gamma ^2d^3k/[2(2\pi )^3ϵ_k]`$. After the regularization, the self energy is given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m(𝐪,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`2\gamma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }ϵ_kϵ_{𝐤𝐪}+2\mu +i\delta }+\frac{1}{2ϵ_k})}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{2\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}})^{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_q}{2}}2\mu \mathrm{\Omega }}.`$ (16)
The pole of the molecular propagator in Eq.(11) is now given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_q=\frac{ϵ_q}{2}2\mu \frac{1}{4}(\sqrt{\frac{m^3\gamma ^4}{4\pi ^2\mathrm{}^6}4h}\frac{m^{\frac{3}{2}}\gamma ^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}^3})^2.$$
(17)
Far off the resonance, the molecule energy is simply given by $`h+ϵ_q/22\mu `$; near the resonance $`m^3\gamma ^4/(\pi ^2\mathrm{}^6)4|h|`$, the molecule energy is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_q\frac{ϵ_q}{2}2\mu \frac{4\pi ^2\mathrm{}^6h^2}{m^3\gamma ^4}.$$
(18)
Near the resonance and close to the pole, the propagator can be approximated as

$$G_m(𝐪,\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{Z}{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_q+i\delta },$$
(19)
where the renormalization factor $`Z`$ is given by

$$Z=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^3}{m\gamma ^2}\sqrt{\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_0|}{m}}.$$
(20)
In this region, the scattering length is approximately given by

$$a\frac{\gamma ^2m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2|h|},$$
(21)
and the molecular binding energy is approximately given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0\frac{4\pi ^2\mathrm{}^6h^2}{m^3\gamma ^4}2\mu .$$
(22)
The relation between the binding energy of molecules and the scattering length is similar to that in the single-channel problem,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{ma^2}2\mu ,$$
(23)
except that there is a mean-field shift by $`2\mu `$.

So far the results presented in this section Eq.(18-23) are derived for the vacuum case, valid near the resonance when the scattering length $`a`$ is much larger than the scattering length off the resonance $`a_0`$. For a system with many particles, these results are still valid as long as the system is in the dilute region $`a_0a1/\sqrt[3]{n}`$, because in this region the many-body contribution to the molecular energy from the condensate is proportional to the particle density $`n`$, much smaller than $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_0|`$. However, beyond the dilute region when $`na^31`$, the many-body effect may be dominant and the results for the dilute case may no longer be accurate. In a recent experimentClaussen2 , a shift to the molecular energy larger than $`2\mu `$ was observed, which may be due to the many-body effect.

If the molecule density is initially slightly away from the stationary value due to a perturbation of the molecule energy in the action $`\alpha \varphi ^{}\varphi `$, the molecule density will oscillate. The oscillation can be calculated in the linear response theory. In the long-time $`t\mathrm{}`$ limit, it is given by

$`<\varphi ^{}(t)\varphi (t)>\varphi _0^2`$ $``$ $`i\alpha \varphi _0^2[<\varphi _0(t)\varphi _0^{}(0)>\varphi _0^2]`$ (24)
$``$ $`\alpha \varphi _0^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }G_m(0,\omega )e^{i\omega t/\mathrm{}}}`$ (25)
$``$ $`2i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_0}{|h|}}\varphi _0^2e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_0t/\mathrm{}}.`$ (26)
The oscillation frequency is simply given by the molecular binding energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ because of the molecular condensation. It is similar to the single-channel problem where the phonon frequency coincides with the energy of the single particle excitation. In the experimentDonley , the oscillation frequency fits perfectly with the molecule energy calculated from a microscopic potentialvanKempen . This result was also obtained in the context of photoassociationMackie , in the Hartree-Fock approachHolland , and in Ref. Koehler .

In the dilute region, most of the particles are in the atomic condensate. The long-wavelength and low-energy excitations are atomic excitations, described by the gaussian fluctuation

$$\delta F_2=\underset{𝐤}{}[(ϵ_k\mu +2g_0\psi _0^2\frac{2\gamma ^2\psi _0^2}{h2\mu })\psi _𝐤^{}\psi _𝐤+(\frac{g_0\psi _0^2}{2}\gamma \varphi _0)(\psi _𝐤^{}\psi _𝐤^{}+h.c.)].$$
(27)
The molecular part of the fluctuation is not included because molecular excitations have a gap $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ as shown above. However molecular excitations contribute a diagonal self-energy to the atomic propagator through the coupling between atoms and molecules

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_a(k,\omega )=2\gamma ^2\psi _0^2G_m(k,\omega )\frac{2\gamma ^2\psi _0}{h2\mu },$$
(28)
which is already included in the r.h.s. of Eq.(27).

After diagonalizing Eq.(27), we obtain a linear dispersed mode

$$\delta F_2=C+\underset{𝐤}{}E_kc_𝐤^{}c_𝐤,$$
(29)
where $`c_𝐤=u_k\psi _𝐤+v_k\psi _𝐤^{}`$, $`u_k^2=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{ϵ_k+\mu }{2E_k}+1)`$ and $`v_k^2=u_k^21`$. The excitation energy is given by

$$E_k=\sqrt{ϵ_k(ϵ_k+2\mu )},$$
(30)
and the energy of quantum depletion $`C`$ is given by

$$\frac{C}{V}=\frac{8}{15\pi ^2}(\frac{m\mu }{\mathrm{}^2})^{\frac{3}{2}}\mu .$$
(31)
The density of the quantum depletion can be easily calculated.

$$\delta n=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}v_k^2=\frac{1}{3\pi ^2}(\frac{m\mu }{\mathrm{}^2})^{\frac{3}{2}}$$
(32)
These results are consistent with the first order results in the traditional theory. To this order, $`\mu =4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m`$, any physical quantity can be expressed in terms of the density of the atomic condensate $`\psi _0^2`$ and the scattering length $`a`$ .

## IV The three-body recombination

In the dilute region, the condensate state is only metastable because occupation of molecular states can lower the system energy. Most of the decay is due to the three-body recombination. In the two-channel system, the picture of this process is rather simple. One pair of atoms with opposite momentum in the quantum depletion break up, and one of the them interacts with an atom in the condensate to form a molecule leaving the other atom of the original pair as an excited atom. The energy and momentum can be conserved in this process because molecules have negative energies. Mathematically the decay comes from the perturbation of the atom-molecule coupling term $`2\gamma \psi _0\varphi _𝐤^{}\psi _𝐤`$ in the Hamiltonian.

The probability density of this three-body recombination process can be calculated by Fermi’s golden rule

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}|<𝐤|2\gamma \psi _0\varphi _𝐤^{}\psi _𝐤|G>|^2\delta (E_k+\mathrm{\Omega }_k)}`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}4\gamma ^2\psi _0^2v_k^2Z\delta (E_k+\mathrm{\Omega }_k)},`$ (34)
where $`|G>`$ is the ground state of $`\delta F_2`$, $`|𝐤>`$ is the ground state plus a molecule with wavevector $`𝐤`$ and an excited atom with wavevector $`𝐤`$. As defined earlier, $`v_k`$ is the coherence factor, and $`Z`$ is the probability of finding a molecule in a molecular eigenstate given in Eq.(20). In the dilute region near resonance, the decay rate is approximately given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}16\psi _0^2\frac{\mu ^2}{4ϵ_k^2}\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Omega }_0|}(\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2})^{\frac{3}{2}}\delta (\frac{3ϵ_k}{2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{ma^2})}`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`32\sqrt{3}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}\psi _0^6a^4.`$ (36)
In Fig.(1), the particle-loss rate for the 23Na system is plotted and compared with the experimental dataInouye . In the region $`2a_0a10a_0`$ (906G to 906.9G for the magnetic field), the theoretical result is fairly close to the experimental data, although the theoretical derivation so far is for the homogeneous case and the experimental system is inhomogeneous. In the single-channel caseFedichev , the rate of the three-body recombination is also proportional to $`n^3a^4`$, but the coefficient is about $`3.9`$, about 140 times smaller than $`32\sqrt{3}\pi ^2`$, and cannot be fitted to the experimental result on 23Na. The increase of the coefficient reflects the fact that in the two-channel system there is a virtual process allowing two atoms to collide and fall into a molecular state, so the three-body recombination process is greater. However, in rubidium system, the experimental results are rather intricateClaussen . A decay rate with a weak density dependence was observed, which seems to suggest that the decay is dominated by a process independent of the particle density.

In addition, the collision between atoms and molecules can also provide a three-body decay but its decay rate is much smalleramc . The decay of the condensate is consistent the numerical result in Ref. Goral  that when multiple modes are included the condensate is depleted over time. The energy scale of the decay rate is comparable to the chemical potential $`\mu `$ when $`\psi _0^2a^3`$ is of the order of $`0.01`$,

$$\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\psi _0^2u}8\sqrt{3}\pi \psi _0^2a^3.$$
(37)
It indicates that the condensate may not be stable enough beyond the dilute region.

## V Conclusion

In conclusion, we have obtained properties of a dilute Bose gas with a Feshbach resonance at zero temperature. The system contains both atomic and molecular condensates but the atom density is much higher. The molecular excitation has a energy gap and the atomic excitations are gapless. The low-energy properties are consistent with the results of the traditional theory. However, the condensed state is only metastable. The coupling between atomic and molecular states gives rise to a three-body recombination process. The decay rate is proportional to $`\psi _0^6a^4`$ as in the single-channel case, but the coefficient is much bigger as observed in the Na experimentInouye .

It is tempting to go beyond the dilute region in the current approach. However, there are two expansion parameters in higher orders terms neglected in this approach, $`\psi _0a_0\sqrt{a}`$ from the atomic interaction and $`\psi _0m^2\gamma ^2\sqrt{a}/(\mathrm{}^4|h|)`$ from the atom-molecule coupling. The latter is of the order of $`\psi _0\sqrt{a^3}`$ which is much larger than unity near the resonance, and causes the expansion to break down beyond the dilute region. In the most recent experimentClaussen2 , a shift in the molecular energy was observed, which cannot be explained by any theories so far. It seems to suggest that there is a non-trivial many-body effect beyond the dilute region and more theoretical effort are needed.

We would like thank Tin-Lun Ho, David J. Thouless, and Ping Ao for helpful discussions. LY was supported by NSF under Grant No. DMR 0201948 during the stay in University of Washington, and is currently supported by SRF for ROCS, SEM. ZHN is supported by NSFC under Grant No. 10174003.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

An $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider operating at centre-of-mass (cm) energy of 500 GeV or higher and with an integrated luminosity of several hundred inverse femtobarns should be able to study with precision various properties of the top quark. The possibility of setting up such a collider is under consideration at a number of places at the moment, particularly, JLC (Joint Linear Collider) in Japan , TESLA in Germany , and NLC (Next Linear Collider) in the U.S.A.

While the standard model (SM) predicts $`CP`$ violation outside the $`K`$-, $`D`$\- and $`B`$-meson systems to be unobservably small, in some extensions of SM, $`CP`$ violation might be considerably enhanced, especially in the presence of a heavy top quark. In particular, $`CP`$-violating electric dipole form factor of the top quark, and the analogous $`CP`$-violating “weak” dipole form factor in the $`t\overline{t}`$ coupling to $`Z`$, could be enhanced. These $`CP`$-violating form factors could be determined in a model-independent way at high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders, where $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ would proceed through virtual $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ exchange.

Since a heavy top quark with a mass of the order of 175 GeV decays before it hadronizes , it has been suggested  that top polarization asymmetry in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ can be used to determine the $`CP`$-violating dipole form factors, since polarization information would be retained in the decay product distribution. There have been several proposals in which the $`CP`$-violating dipole couplings could be measured in decay momentum correlations or asymmetries with or without beam polarization. For a review see .

In this context it is important to note that top polarization can only be studied using top decay. Therefore, for the information from decay distributions to reflect correctly top polarization, the decay amplitudes for various top polarization states have to be known accurately. In particular, if there are any anomalous effects in the decay process, they have to be known accurately. Better still, the decay distributions chosen for the study have to be insensitive to anomalous effects in the decay process. The single-lepton angular distributions that we discuss in this work satisfy the latter condition – they accurately reflect the polarization of the top quark resulting from the production process, while one can continue to use SM in the decay process.

It has been found that one-loop QCD corrections to the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ can be as high as 30% for cm energy $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV . It is therefore important to examine the effect of these QCD corrections in the decay lepton distributions , and their consequent effect on the measurement of $`CP`$-violating couplings.

In this paper we re-visit some suggestions made  for the measurement of top dipole moments in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ using angular asymmetries of the charged lepton produced in the semi-leptonic decay of one of $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$, while the other decays hadronically. The purpose is to highlight certain features of the proposal which have become more significant in the light of recent developments, and to update the numerical results. The improvements included in this update are several. Firstly, $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ QCD corrections in the soft-gluon approximation have been now been included. Secondly, a simplification used in earlier work , that of neglecting $`CP`$ violation in top decay, has been dispensed with in the light of recent work . It turns out that for angular asymmetries of the charged lepton considered here, $`CP`$ violation in the decay (or for that matter even arbitrary $`CP`$-conserving modifications of the $`tbW`$ vertex) has no effect, if the $`b`$-quark mass is neglected. Finally, there is now a better idea of luminosities possible at a future linear collider. Together with updated values of beam polarization now considered feasible, the estimates of possible limits on dipole moments would be more realistic. Thus the estimates in earlier work have been improved upon and put on sounder theoretical footing.

Earlier proposals have considered a variety of $`CP`$-violating observables, with varying sensitivities. These include, in addition to angular asymmetries, also vector and tensor correlations , and expectation values of optimal variables . (For a discussion on relative sensitivities of some variables, see ). We have chosen certain angular asymmetries here which have some advantages over others, even though they may not be the most sensitive ones. The advantages are: (i) Our asymmetries are in the laboratory frame, making them directly observable. (ii) They depend on final state momenta, rather than on top polarization. Polarization is measured only indirectly through the decay distributions. We therefore concentrate only on actual decay-lepton distributions, which are the simplest to observe. (iii) The observables we choose either do not depend on precise determination of energy and momentum of top quarks, or, in case of azimuthal asymmetries of the lepton, depend minimally on the top momentum direction for the sake of defining the coordinate axes. This has the advantage of higher accuracy. (iv) As stated before, leptonic angular distribution is free from background from $`CP`$ violation in top decay, and gives a direct handle on anomalous couplings in top production. (v) The polar-angle asymmetries we consider can be obtained in analytical form, which is useful for making quick computations. It is possible to get analytical forms for certain azimuthal asymmetries as well, provided no angular cuts are imposed. (vi) The asymmetries considered here are rather simple conceptually, and hopefully, also from the practical measurement point of view.

Our single-lepton asymmetries have another obvious advantage, that since either $`t`$ or $`\overline{t}`$ is allowed to decay hadronically, there is a gain in statistics, as compared to double-lepton asymmetries.

Our results are based on fully analytical calculation of single lepton distributions in the production and subsequent decay of $`t\overline{t}`$. We present fully differential angular distribution as well as the distribution in the polar angle of the lepton with respect to the beam direction in the centre-of-mass (cm) frame for arbitrary longitudinal beam polarizations. These distributions for SM were first obtained by Arens and Sehgal . Distributions including the effect of $`CP`$ violation only in production were obtained in , whereas, with all anomalous effects included in the $`\gamma t\overline{t}`$ and $`Zt\overline{t}`$ vertices, as well as decay $`tbW`$ vertex were obtained in . Angular distributions in SM with $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ QCD corrections in the soft-gluon approximation were obtained in . The distributions including anomalous effects in both top production and decay, and including $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ QCD corrections in the soft-gluon approximation are presented here for the first time. While QCD corrections to $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ are substantial, to the extent of about 30% at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, their effect on leptonic angular distributions is much smaller . The main effect on the results will be to the sensitivity, through the $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ factor, where $`N`$ is the number of events. A part of this work was reported in .

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we describe the calculation of the decay-lepton angular distribution from a decaying $`t`$ or $`\overline{t}`$ in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$. In Sec. 3 we describe $`CP`$-violating asymmetries. Numerical results are presented in Sec. 4, and Sec. 5 contains our conclusions. The Appendix contains certain expressions which are too lengthy to be put in the main text.

## 2 Calculation of lepton angular distributions

We describe in this section the calculation of $`l^+(l^{})`$ distribution in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ and the subsequent decay $`tbl^+\nu _l(\overline{t}\overline{b}l^{}\overline{\nu _l})`$. We adopt the narrow-width approximation for $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$, as well as for $`W^\pm `$ produced in $`t,\overline{t}`$ decay.

We assume the top quark couplings to $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ to be given by the vertex factor $`ie\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^j`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^j=c_v^j\gamma _\mu +c_a^j\gamma _\mu \gamma _5+\frac{c_d^j}{2m_t}i\gamma _5(p_tp_{\overline{t}})_\mu ,j=\gamma ,Z,$$
(1)
with

$`c_v^\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}},c_a^\gamma =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`c_v^Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{2}{3}x_W\right)}{\sqrt{x_W(1x_W)}}},`$ (2)
$`c_a^Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{x_W(1x_W)}}},`$
and $`x_W=sin^2\theta _W`$, $`\theta _W`$ being the weak mixing angle. In addition to the SM couplings $`c_{v,a}^{\gamma ,Z}`$ we have introduced the $`CP`$-violating electric and weak dipole form factors, $`ec_d^\gamma /m_t`$ and $`ec_d^Z/m_t`$, which are assumed small. Use has also been made of the Dirac equation in rewriting the usual dipole coupling $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }(p_t+p_{\overline{t}})^\nu \gamma _5`$ as $`i\gamma _5(p_tp_{\overline{t}})_\mu `$, dropping small corrections to the vector and axial-vector couplings. We will work in the approximation in which we keep only linear terms in $`c_d^\gamma `$ and $`c_d^Z`$. Addition of other $`CP`$-conserving form factors will not change our results in the linear approximation.

To include $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ corrections in the soft-gluon approximation (SGA), we need to modify the above vertices, as explained in . These modified vertices are given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^\gamma =c_v^\gamma \gamma _\mu +\left[c_M^\gamma +i\gamma _5c_d^\gamma \right]\frac{(p_tp_{\overline{t}})_\mu }{2m_t},$$
(3)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^Z=c_v^Z\gamma _\mu +c_a^Z\gamma _\mu \gamma _5+\left[c_M^Z+i\gamma _5c_d^Z\right]\frac{(p_tp_{\overline{t}})_\mu }{2m_t},$$
(4)
where

$$c_v^\gamma =\frac{2}{3}(1+A),$$
(5)
$$c_v^Z=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right)(1+A),$$
(6)
$$c_a^\gamma =0,$$
(7)
$$c_a^Z=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}\left(\frac{1}{4}\right)(1+A+2B),$$
(8)
$$c_M^\gamma =\frac{2}{3}B,$$
(9)
$$c_M^Z=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right)B.$$
(10)
The form factors $`A`$ and $`B`$ are given to order $`\alpha _s`$ in SGA (see, for example,  by

$`\mathrm{Re}A`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\alpha }_s[({\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta ^2}{\beta }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}2)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{4\omega _{\mathrm{max}}^2}{m_t^2}}4`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2+3\beta ^2}{\beta }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta ^2}{\beta }}\{\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta }{1+\beta }}(3\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{1+\beta }}`$
$`+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{1\beta }})+4\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\beta }{1+\beta }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\pi ^2\}],`$
$$\mathrm{Re}B=\widehat{\alpha }_s\frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta }\mathrm{log}\frac{1+\beta }{1\beta },$$
(12)
$$\mathrm{Im}B=\widehat{\alpha }_s\pi \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta },$$
(13)
where $`\widehat{\alpha }_s=\alpha _s/(3\pi )`$, $`\beta =\sqrt{14m_t^2/s}`$, and Li2 is the Spence function. $`\mathrm{Re}A`$ in eq. (11) contains the effective form factor for a cut-off $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$ on the gluon energy after the infrared singularities have been cancelled between the virtual- and soft-gluon contributions in the on-shell renormalization scheme. Only the real part of the form factor $`A`$ has been given, because the contribution of the imaginary part is proportional to the $`Z`$ width, and hence negligibly small . The imaginary part of $`B`$, however, contributes to azimuthal distributions.

The helicity amplitudes for $`e^+e^{}\gamma ^{},Z^{}t\overline{t}`$ in the cm frame, including $`c_d^{\gamma ,Z}`$ and $`c_M^{\gamma ,Z}`$ couplings, have been given in  (see also Kane et al., ref. ).

We write the contribution of a general $`tbW`$ vertex to $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$decays as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tbW}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}\overline{u}(p_b)[\gamma ^\mu (f_{1L}P_L+f_{1R}P_R){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{m_W}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }(p_tp_b)_\nu (f_{2L}P_L+f_{2R}P_R)]u(p_t),`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{tbW}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}^{}\overline{v}(p_{\overline{t}})[\gamma ^\mu (\overline{f}_{1L}P_L+\overline{f}_{1R}P_R){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{m_W}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }(p_{\overline{t}}p_{\overline{b}})_\nu (\overline{f}_{2L}P_L+\overline{f}_{2R}P_R)]v(p_{\overline{b}}),`$
where $`P_{L,R}=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _5)`$, and $`V_{tb}`$ is the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element, which we take to be equal to one. If $`CP`$ is conserved, the form factors $`f`$ above obey the relations

$$f_{1L}=\overline{f}_{1L};f_{1R}=\overline{f}_{1R},$$
(16)
and

$$f_{2L}=\overline{f}_{2R};f_{2R}=\overline{f}_{2L}.$$
(17)
Like $`c_d^\gamma `$ and $`c_d^Z`$ above, we will also treat $`f_{2L,R}`$ and $`\overline{f}_{2L,R}`$ as small, and retain only terms linear in them. For the form factors $`f_{1L}`$ and $`\overline{f}_{1L}`$, we retain their SM values, viz., $`f_{1L}=\overline{f}_{1L}=1`$. $`f_{1R}`$ and $`\overline{f}_{1R}`$ do not contibute in the limit of vanishing $`b`$ mass, which is used here. Also, $`f_{2L}`$ and $`\overline{f}_{2R}`$ drop out in this limit.

The helicity amplitudes for

$$tbW^+,W^+l^+\nu _l$$

and

$$\overline{t}\overline{b}W^{},W^{}l^{}\overline{\nu _l}$$

in the respective rest frames of $`t`$, $`\overline{t}`$, in the limit that all masses except the top mass are neglected, are given in ref. .

Combining the production and decay amplitudes in the narrow-width approximation for $`t,\overline{t},W^+,W^{}`$, and using appropriate Lorentz boosts to calculate everything in the $`e^+e^{}`$ cm frame, we get the $`l^+`$ and $`l^{}`$ angular distributions for the case of $`e^{}`$, $`e^+`$ with polarization $`P_e`$, $`P_{\overline{e}}`$ to be:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma ^\pm }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _td\mathrm{cos}\theta _ld\varphi _l}}={\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha ^2\beta m_t^2}{8s^2}}B_tB_{\overline{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tl})^3}}`$ (18)
$`\times `$ $`[𝒜^\pm (1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tl})+^\pm (cos\theta _{tl}\beta )`$
$`+𝒞^\pm (1\beta ^2)\mathrm{sin}\theta _t\mathrm{sin}\theta _l(\mathrm{cos}\theta _t\mathrm{cos}\varphi _l\mathrm{sin}\theta _t\mathrm{cot}\theta _l)`$
$`+𝒟^\pm (1\beta ^2)\mathrm{sin}\theta _t\mathrm{sin}\theta _l\mathrm{sin}\varphi _l],`$
where $`\sigma ^+`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ refer respectively to $`l^+`$ and $`l^{}`$ distributions, with the same notation for the kinematic variables of particles and antiparticles. Thus, $`\theta _t`$, is the polar angle of $`t`$ (or $`\overline{t}`$), and $`E_l,\theta _l,\varphi _l`$ are the energy, polar angle and azimuthal angle of $`l^+`$ (or $`l^{}`$). All the angles are now in the cm frame, with the $`z`$ axis chosen along the $`e^{}`$ momentum, and the $`x`$ axis chosen in the plane containing the $`e^{}`$ and $`t`$ directions. $`\theta _{tl}`$ is the angle between the $`t`$ and $`l^+`$ directions (or $`\overline{t}`$ and $`l^{}`$ directions). $`\beta `$ is the $`t`$ (or $`\overline{t}`$) velocity: $`\beta =\sqrt{14m_t^2/s}`$, and $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1\beta ^2}`$. $`B_t`$ and $`B_{\overline{t}}`$ are respectively the branching ratios of $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ into the final states being considered.

The coefficients $`𝒜^\pm `$, $`^\pm `$, $`𝒞^\pm `$ and $`𝒟^\pm `$ are given by

$`𝒜^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`A_0\pm A_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _t+A_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _t,`$ (19)
$`^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`B_0^\pm \pm B_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _t+B_2^\pm \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _t,`$ (20)
$`𝒞^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm C_0^\pm +C_1^\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta _t,`$ (21)
$`𝒟^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm D_0^\pm +D_1^\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta _t,`$ (22)
The quantities $`A_i`$, $`B_i^\pm `$, $`C_i^\pm `$ and $`D_i^\pm `$ occurring in the above equation are functions of the masses, $`s`$, the degrees of $`e`$ and $`\overline{e}`$ polarization ($`P_e`$ and $`P_{\overline{e}}`$), and the coupling constants. They are listed in the Appendix.

It should be emphasized that, as shown in , the distribution in (18) does not depend on anomalous effects in the $`tbW`$ vertices (14) and (15). In the limit of small $`b`$-quark mass, and in the linear approximation, the effect of all possible form factors in the angular distributions is the same overall factor which appears in the total width. Consequently, this factor cancels out with another appearing in the denominator . As a consequence, the angular distributions are totally independent of any anomalous effects, $`CP`$violating or $`CP`$conserving, in the decay vertex. Thus even $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ QCD corrections to the $`tbW`$ vertices would not be felt in (18).

To obtain the single-differential polar-angle distribution, we integrate over $`\varphi `$ from 0 to $`2\pi `$, and finally over cos$`\theta _t`$ from $`1`$ to +1. The final result is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^\pm }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}}={\displaystyle \frac{3\pi \alpha ^2}{32s}}B_tB_{\overline{t}}\beta \{4A_02A_1({\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta ^2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }})\mathrm{cos}\theta _l`$ (23)
$`+2A_2({\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta ^3}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _l)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta ^2}}(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _l\beta ^2+2\beta ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _l))`$
$`\pm 2B_1{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}2\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta _l`$
$`+B_2^\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta ^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^23}{\beta }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}+6\right)(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _l)`$
$`\pm 2C_0^\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}2\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta _l`$
$`C_1^\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta ^3}}({\displaystyle \frac{3(1\beta ^2)}{\beta }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}2(32\beta ^2))(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _l)\}.`$
This is the same expression as in  and . However, the significance of the functions $`A_i`$, $`B_i`$, $`C_i`$ and $`D_i`$ is different in each case.

We now proceed to a discussion of $`CP`$-odd asymmetries resulting from the use of the above distributions.

## 3 $`CP`$-violating angular asymmetries

We will work with two different types of asymmetries, one which does not depend on the azimuthal angles angle of the decay lepton, so that the azimuthal angle is fully integrated over, and the other dependent on the azimuthal angle. In all cases, we assume a cut-off of $`\theta _0`$ on the forward and backward directions of the charged lepton. Some cut-off on the forward and backward angles is certainly needed from an experimental point of view; we furthermore exploit the cut-off to optimize the sensitivity.

In the first case, namely polar asymmetries, we define two independent $`CP`$-violating asymmetries, which depend on different linear combinations of Im$`c_d^\gamma `$ and Im$`c_d^Z`$ . (It is not possible to define $`CP`$-odd quantities which determine Re$`c_d^{\gamma ,Z}`$ using single-lepton polar distributions, as can be seen from the expression for the $`CP`$-odd combination $`\frac{d\sigma ^+}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}(\theta _l)\frac{d\sigma ^{}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}(\pi \theta _l)`$). One is simply the total lepton-charge asymmetry, with a cut-off of $`\theta _0`$ on the forward and backward directions:

$$A_{ch}(\theta _0)=\frac{{\displaystyle _{\theta _0}^{\pi \theta _0}}𝑑\theta _l\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^+}{d\theta _l}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{}}{d\theta _l}}\right)}{{\displaystyle _{\theta _0}^{\pi \theta _0}}𝑑\theta _l\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^+}{d\theta _l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{}}{d\theta _l}}\right)}.$$
(24)
The other is the leptonic forward-backward asymmetry combined with charge asymmetry, again with the angles within $`\theta _0`$ of the forward and backward directions excluded:

$$A_{fb}(\theta _0)=\frac{{\displaystyle _{\theta _0}^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}𝑑\theta _l\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^+}{d\theta _l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{}}{d\theta _l}}\right){\displaystyle _{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\pi \theta _0}}𝑑\theta _l\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^+}{d\theta _l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{}}{d\theta _l}}\right)}{{\displaystyle _{\theta _0}^{\pi \theta _0}}𝑑\theta _l\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^+}{d\theta _l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{}}{d\theta _l}}\right)}.$$
(25)
Analytic expressions for both these aymmetries may be easily obtained using (23), and are not displayed here explicitly.

We note the fact that $`𝒜_{ch}(\theta _0)`$ vanishes for $`\theta _0=0`$, since then it is simply the asymmetry between the total rates of production of $`l^+`$ and $`l^{}`$. It then vanishes so long as $`CP`$-violation in decay does not contribute. $`𝒜_{fb}(\theta _0)`$, however, is nonzero for $`\theta _0=0`$. This implies that the $`CP`$-violating charge asymmetry does not exist unless a cut-off is imposed on the lepton production angle. $`𝒜_{fb}(\theta _0)`$, however, is nonzero for $`\theta _0=0`$.

We now define angular asymmetries of the second type, which depend on the range of the azimuthal angle $`\varphi _l`$ of the charged lepton. These are called the up-down and left-right asymmetries, and depend respectively on the real and imaginary parts of the dipole couplings.

The up-down asymmetry is defined by

$$A_{ud}(\theta _0)=\frac{1}{2\sigma (\theta _0)}_{\theta _0}^{\pi \theta _0}\left[\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{up}}^+}{d\theta _l}\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{down}}^+}{d\theta _l}+\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{up}}^{}}{d\theta _l}\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{down}}^{}}{d\theta _l}\right]𝑑\theta _l,$$
(26)
where

$$\sigma (\theta _0)=_{\theta _0}^{\pi \theta _0}\frac{d\sigma }{d\theta _l}𝑑\theta _l$$
(27)
is the SM cross section for the semi-leptonic final state, with a forward and backward cut-off of $`\theta _0`$ on $`\theta _l`$. Here up/down refers to $`(p_{l^\pm })_y\stackrel{>}{<}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},(p_{l^\pm })_y`$ being the $`y`$ component of $`\stackrel{}{p}_{l^\pm }`$ with respect to a coordinate system chosen in the $`e^+e^{}`$ center-of-mass (cm) frame so that the $`z`$-axis is along $`\stackrel{}{p}_e`$, and the $`y`$-axis is along $`\stackrel{}{p}_e\times \stackrel{}{p}_t`$. The $`t\overline{t}`$ production plane is thus the $`xz`$ plane. Thus, “up” refers to the range $`0<\varphi _l<\pi `$, and “down” refers to the range $`\pi <\varphi _l<2\pi `$.

The left-right asymmetry is defined by

$$A_{lr}(\theta _0)=\frac{1}{2\sigma (\theta _0)}_{\theta _0}^{\pi \theta _0}\left[\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{left}}^+}{d\theta _l}\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{right}}^+}{d\theta _l}+\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{left}}^{}}{d\theta _l}\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{right}}^{}}{d\theta _l}\right]𝑑\theta _l,$$
(28)
Here left/right refers to $`(p_{l^\pm })_x\stackrel{>}{<}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},(p_{l^\pm })_x`$ being the $`x`$ component of $`\stackrel{}{p}_{l^\pm }`$ with respect to the coordinate system system defined above. Thus, “left” refers to the range $`\pi /2<\varphi _l<\pi /2`$, and “right” refers to the range $`\pi /2<\varphi _l<3\pi /2`$.

Analytic expressions for the up-down and left-right symmetry are not available for nonzero cut-off in $`\theta _l`$. Hence, the angular integrations have been done numerically in what follows.

These azimuthal asymmetries with a different choice of axes were discussed in , without a cut-off $`\theta _0`$. Two other asymmetries were defined in , which helped to disentangle the two dipole couplings from each other. However, we do not discuss these here. Instead, we will assume that the electron beam polarization can be made to change sign to give additional observable quantities to enable this disentanglement.

All these asymmetries are a measure of $`CP`$ violation in the unpolarized case and in the case when polarization is present, but $`P_e=P_{\overline{e}}`$. When $`P_eP_{\overline{e}}`$, the initial state is not invariant under $`CP`$, and therefore $`CP`$-invariant interactions can contribute to the asymmetries. However, to leading order in $`\alpha `$, these $`CP`$-invariant contributions vanish in the limit $`m_e=0`$. Order-$`\alpha `$ collinear helicity-flip photon emission can give a $`CP`$-even contribution. However, this background has been estimated in , and found to be negligible for certain $`CP`$-odd correlations for the kind of luminosities under consideration. It has also been estimated for $`A_{fb}`$ and $`A_{ch}`$, and again found negligible . The background is zero in the case of $`A_{ud}`$ . It is expected that the background will also be negligible for $`A_{lr}`$ thought it has not been calculated explicitly.

## 4 Numerical Results

In this section we describe results for the calculation of 90% confidence level (CL) limits that could be put on Re$`c_d^{\gamma ,Z}`$ and Im$`c_d^{\gamma ,Z}`$ using the asymmetries described in the previous sections.

We look at only semileptonic final states. That is to say, when $`t`$ decays leptonically, we assume $`\overline{t}`$ decays hadronically, and vice versa. We sum over the electron and muon decay channels. Thus, $`B_tB_{\overline{t}}`$ is taken to be $`2/3\times 2/9`$.

We have considered unpolarized beams, as well as the case when the electron beam has a longitudinal polarization of 80%, either left-handed or right-handed. We have also considered the possibility of two runs for identical time-spans with the polarization reversed in the second run. The positron beam is assumed to be unpolarized. Later on we discuss the results in the case when the positron beam is also polarized.

We assume an integrated luminosity of 500 fb-1 for a cm energy of 500 GeV, and an integrated luminosity of 1000 fb-1 for a cm energy of 1000 GeV. The limits for different integrated luminosities can easily be obtained by scaling appropriately the limits presented here by the inverse square root of the factor by which the luminosity is scaled. We comment later on on the results for a cm energy of 800 GeV with an integrated luminosity of 800 GeV.

We use the parameters $`\alpha =1/128`$, $`\alpha _s(m_Z^2)=0.118`$, $`m_Z=91.187`$ GeV, $`m_W=80.41`$ GeV, $`m_t=175`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2315`$. We have used, following , a gluon energy cut-off of $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}=(\sqrt{s}2m_t)/5`$. While qualitative results would be insensitive, exact quantitative results would of course depend on the choice of cut-off.

Fig. 1 shows the SM cross section $`\sigma (\theta _0)`$, defined in eq. (27), for $`t`$ or $`\overline{t}`$ production, followed by its semileptonic decay, with a cut-off $`\theta _0`$ on the lepton polar angle, plotted against $`\theta _0`$ for the two choices of $`\sqrt{s}`$ and for different electron beam polarizations.

Fig. 2 shows the asymmetry $`A_{ch}`$ defined in eq. (24) arising when either of the (imaginary parts of) electric and weak dipole couplings takes the value 1, the other taking the value 0, plotted as a function of the cut-off $`\theta _0`$, for the polarized and unpolarized cases, for two different cm energies. Fig. 3 is the corresponding figure for $`A_{fb}`$ defined in eq. (25).

Similarly, the asymmetries $`A_{ud}`$ from eq. (26) and $`A_{lr}`$ from eq. (28), which depend respectively on the real and imaginary parts of $`c_d^{\gamma ,Z}`$, are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Again, only one of the couplings take a nonzero value, in this case 0.1, while the others are vanishing.

Tables 1-5 show the results on the limits obtainable for each of these possibilities. In all cases, the value of the cut-off $`\theta _0`$ has been chosen to get the best sensitivity for that specific item. In case of $`A_{fb}`$, the sensitivity is maximum for $`\theta _0=0`$. In that case, the cut-off has been arbitrarily chosen to be 10.

In Table 1 we give the 90% confidence level (CL) limits that can be obtained on Im$`c_d^\gamma `$ and Im$`c_d^Z`$, assuming one of them to be nonzero, the other taken to be vanishing. The limit is defined as the value of Im$`c_d^\gamma `$ or Im$`c_d^Z`$ for which the corresponding asymmetry $`A_{ch}`$ or $`A_{fb}`$ becomes equal to $`1.64/\sqrt{N}`$, where $`N`$ is the total number of events.

Table 2 shows possible 90% CL limits for the unpolarized case, when results from $`A_{ch}`$ and $`A_{fb}`$ are combined. The idea is that each asymmetry measures a different linear combination of Im$`c_d^\gamma `$ and Im$`c_d^Z`$. So a null result for the two asymmetries will correspond to two different bands of regions allowed at 90% CL in the space of Im$`c_d^\gamma `$ and Im$`c_d^Z`$. The overlapping region of the two bands leads to the limits given in Table 2. In this case, for 90% CL, the asymmetry is required to be $`2.15/\sqrt{N}`$, corresponding to two degrees of freedom. Incidentally, the same procedure followed for $`P_e=\pm 0.8`$ gives much worse limits.

Similarly, using one of the two asymmetries, but two different polarizations of the electron beam, one can get two bands in the parameter plane, which give simultaneous limits on the dipole couplings. The results for electron polarizations $`P_e=\pm 0.8`$ are given in Table 3 for each of the asymmetries $`A_{ch}`$ and $`A_{fb}`$.

Table 4 lists the 90% CL limits which may be obtained on the real and imaginary parts of the dipole couplings using $`A_{ud}`$ and $`A_{lr}`$, assuming one of the couplings to be nonzero at a time.

Table 5 shows simultaneous limits on Re$`c_d^\gamma `$ and Re$`c_d^Z`$ obtainable from combining the data on $`A_{ud}`$ for $`P_e=+0.8`$ and $`P_e=0.8`$, and similarly, limits on Im$`c_d^\gamma `$ and Im$`c_d^Z`$ from data on $`A_{lr}`$ for the two polarizations.

## 5 Conclusions and Discussion

We have presented in analytic form the single-lepton angular distribution in the production and subsequent decay of $`t\overline{t}`$ in the presence of electric and weak dipole form factors of the top quark, including $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ QCD corrections in SGA. Anomalous contributions to the $`tbW`$ decay vertex do not affect these distributions. We have also included effects of longitudinal electron and positron beam polarizations. We have then obtained analytic expressions for certain simple $`CP`$-violating polar-angle asymmetries, specially chosen so that they do not require the reconstruction of the $`t`$ or $`\overline{t}`$ directions or energies. We have also evaluated numercially azimuthal asymmetries which need minimal information on the $`t`$ or $`\overline{t}`$momentum direction alone. We have analyzed these asymmetries to obtain simultaneous 90% CL limits on the electric and weak dipole couplings which would be possible at future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider operating at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV with an integrated luminosity of 500 fb-1, and at $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV with an integrated luminosity of 1000 fb-1. We assume electron beam polarization of $`\pm `$ 80%, while the positron beam is unpolarized. The results are presented in Figs. 1-5 and Tables 1-5.

In general, simultaneous 90% CL limts on $`c_d^\gamma `$ and $`c_d^Z`$ which can be obtained with the polarized 500 GeV option are of the order of 0.1–0.2, corresponding to dipole moments of about $`(12)\times 10^{17}e`$ cm, if the asymmetries $`A_{ch}`$ or $`A_{fb}`$ are used. The limits improve by a factor of 4 to 6 if the azimuthal asymetries $`A_{ud}`$ or $`A_{lr}`$ are used. However, putting in a top detection efficiency factor of 10% in the case of azimuthal asymmetries, where top direction needs to be determined, would bring down these limts to the same level of $`(12)\times 10^{17}e`$ cm.

For $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV and an integrated luminosity of 1000 fb-1, the limits obtainable would be better by a factor of 3 or 4 in each case, bringing them to the level of $`(23)\times 10^{18}e`$ cm in the best cases.

Though we have not presented detailed results here, a numerical evaluation of possible limits has been carried out for other possibilities, like (i) a slightly higher electron beam polarization of 0.9, (ii) positron beam polarized to the extent of 0.6, in addition to polarized electron beam, a possibility envisaged in the context of TESLA, (iii) a beam energy of 800 GeV, with an integrated luminosity of 800 fb-1. The conclusions are as follows.

An increase in the electron polarization from 0.8 to 0.9 (with the positrons unpolarized) improves the sensitivity by about 30 to 50% in case of polar-angle asymmetries $`A_{ch}`$ and $`A_{fb}`$, and to a lesser extent, 10 to 15% in the case of the measurement of Re$`c_d^\gamma `$ and Im$`c_d^Z`$ by azimuthal asymmetries.

Including longitudinal positron polarization of 0.6 (always opposite in sign to the polarization of the electron) improves the sensitivity in all cases by about 20 to 30%.

We conclude that it is probably worthwhile from the top dipole coupling point of view to improve the electron polarization by a small amount rather than invest in a new or difficult technology to achieve a high positron polarization.

The improvement in sensitivity in going from cm energy of 800 GeV to 1000 GeV, with a simultaneous increase in integrated luminosity from 800 fb-1 to 1000 fb-1, is about 5 to 10% in the case of polar-angle asymmetries, and 20 to 25% in case of $`A_{ud}`$. However, the sensitivity worsens in the case of measurement using $`A_{lr}`$, by about 10% or so.

Our general conclusion is that the sensitivity to the measurement of individual dipole couplings Re$`c_d^\gamma `$ and Im$`c_d^Z`$ is improved considerably if the electron beam is polarized, a situation which might easily obtain at linear colliders. As a consequence, simultaneous limits on all the couplings are improved by beam polarization.

The theoretical predictions for $`c_d^{\gamma ,Z}`$ are at the level of $`10^210^3`$, as for example, in the neutral-Higgs-exchange and supersymmetric models of $`CP`$ violation . In other models, like the charged-Higgs-exchange  or third-generation leptoquark models , the prediction are even lower. Hence the measurements suggested here at the 500 GeV option cannot exclude these modes at the 90% C.L. It will be necessary to use the 1000 GeV option with a suitable luminosity to test at least some of the models.

It is necessary to repeat this study including experimental detection efficiencies. Given an overall efficiency, we could still get an idea of the limits on the dipole couplings by scaling them as the inverse square root of the efficiency.

We have not included a cut-off on decay-lepton energies which may be required from a practical point of view. However, our results are perfectly valid if the cut-off is reasonably small. For example, for $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, the minimum lepton energy allowed kinematically is about 7.5 GeV. So a cut-off below that would need no modification of the results.

Contact $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ interactions violating $`CP`$ have been ignored in this work. They should be taken into account for a complete treatment of $`CP`$ violation in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$.

We have restricted ourselves to energies in the $`t\overline{t}`$ continuum. Studies in the threshold region are also interesting and have been investigated in .

Appendix

The expressions for $`A_i`$, $`B_i`$, $`C_i`$ and $`D_i`$ occurring in equation (8) are listed below. They include to first order the form factors $`c_d^\gamma `$ and $`c_d^Z`$, as well as $`c_M^\gamma `$ and $`c_M^Z`$. Terms containing products of $`c_d^{\gamma ,Z}`$ with $`c_M^{\gamma ,Z}`$ have been dropped. It is also understood that terms proportional to products of $`A`$ or $`B`$ (which are of order $`\alpha _s`$) and $`c_d^\gamma `$ or $`c_d^Z`$ have to omitted in the calculations.

$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`2\{(2\beta ^2)[2|c_v^\gamma |^2+2(r_L+r_R)\mathrm{Re}(c_v^\gamma c_v^Z)+(r_L^2+r_R^2)|c_v^Z|^2]`$
$`+\beta ^2(r_L^2+r_R^2)|c_a^Z|^22\beta ^2[2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(c_v^\gamma c_M^\gamma )`$
$`+(r_L+r_R)\mathrm{Re}(c_v^\gamma c_M^Z+c_v^Zc_M^\gamma )+(r_L^2+r_R^2)\mathrm{Re}(c_v^Zc_M^Z)](1P_eP_{\overline{e}})`$
$`+(2\beta ^2)\left[2(r_Lr_R)\mathrm{Re}(c_v^\gamma c_v^Z)+(r_L^2r_R^2)|c_v^Z|^2\right]`$
$`+\beta ^2(r_L^2r_R^2)|c_a^Z|^22\beta ^2[(r_Lr_R)\mathrm{Re}(c_v^\gamma c_M^Z+c_v^Zc_M^\gamma )`$
$`+(r_L^2r_R^2)\mathrm{Re}(c_v^Zc_M^Z)]\}(P_{\overline{e}}P_e),`$
$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`8\beta \mathrm{Re}(c_a^Z\{[(r_Lr_R)c_v^\gamma +(r_L^2r_R^2)c_v^Z](1P_eP_{\overline{e}})`$
$`+[(r_L+r_R)c_v^\gamma +(r_L^2+r_R^2)c_v^Z](P_{\overline{e}}P_e)\}),`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`2\beta ^2\{[2|c_v^\gamma |^2+4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(c_v^\gamma c_M^\gamma )+2(r_L+r_R)\mathrm{Re}(c_v^\gamma c_v^Z+c_v^\gamma c_M^Z+c_v^Zc_M^\gamma )`$
$`+(r_L^2+r_R^2)(|c_v^Z|^2+|c_a^Z|^2+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(c_v^Zc_M^Z))](1P_eP_{\overline{e}})`$
$`+[2(r_Lr_R)\mathrm{Re}(c_v^\gamma c_v^Z+c_v^\gamma c_M^Z+c_v^Zc_M^\gamma )`$
$`+(r_L^2r_R^2)(|c_v^Z|^2+|c_a^Z|^2+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(c_v^Zc_M^Z))](P_{\overline{e}}P_e)\},`$
$`B_0^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`4\beta \{(\mathrm{Re}c_v^\gamma +r_L\mathrm{Re}c_v^Z)(r_L\mathrm{Re}c_a^Z\mathrm{Im}c_d^\gamma r_L\mathrm{Im}c_d^Z)(1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`+(\mathrm{Re}c_v^\gamma +r_R\mathrm{Re}c_v^Z)(r_R\mathrm{Re}c_a^Z\mathrm{Im}c_d^\gamma r_R\mathrm{Im}c_d^Z)(1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})\},`$
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`4\{[|c_v^\gamma +r_Lc_v^Z|^2+\beta ^2r_L^2|c_a^Z|^2](1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`[|c_v^\gamma +r_Rc_v^Z|^2+\beta ^2r_R^2|c_a^Z|^2](1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})\},`$
$`B_2^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`4\beta \{(\mathrm{Re}c_v^\gamma +r_L\mathrm{Re}c_v^Z)(r_L\mathrm{Re}c_a^Z\pm \mathrm{Im}c_d^\gamma \pm r_L\mathrm{Im}c_d^Z)(1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`+(\mathrm{Re}c_v^\gamma +r_R\mathrm{Re}c_v^Z)(r_R\mathrm{Re}c_a^Z\pm \mathrm{Im}c_d^\gamma \pm r_R\mathrm{Im}c_d^Z)(1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})\},`$
$`C_0^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`4\{[|c_v^\gamma +r_Lc_v^Z|^2\beta ^2\gamma ^2(\mathrm{Re}c_v^\gamma +r_L\mathrm{Re}c_v^Z)(\mathrm{Re}c_M^\gamma +r_L\mathrm{Re}c_M^Z)`$
$`\pm \beta ^2\gamma ^2r_L\mathrm{Re}c_a^Z(\mathrm{Im}c_d^\gamma +\mathrm{Im}c_d^Zr_L)](1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`[|c_v^\gamma +r_Rc_v^Z|^2\beta ^2\gamma ^2(\mathrm{Re}c_v^\gamma +r_R\mathrm{Re}c_v^Z)(\mathrm{Re}c_M^\gamma +r_R\mathrm{Re}c_M^Z)`$
$`\pm \beta ^2\gamma ^2r_R\mathrm{Re}c_a^Z(\mathrm{Im}c_d^\gamma +\mathrm{Im}c_d^Zr_R)](1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})\},`$
$`C_1^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`4\beta \{[(\mathrm{Re}c_v^\gamma +r_L\mathrm{Re}c_v^Z)(r_L\mathrm{Re}c_a^Z\pm \gamma ^2\mathrm{Im}c_d^\gamma \pm r_L\gamma ^2\mathrm{Im}c_d^Z)`$
$`\beta ^2\gamma ^2r_L\mathrm{Re}c_a^Z(\mathrm{Re}c_M^\gamma +r_L\mathrm{Re}c_M^Z))](1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`+[(\mathrm{Re}c_v^\gamma +r_R\mathrm{Re}c_v^Z)(r_R\mathrm{Re}c_a^Z\pm \gamma ^2\mathrm{Im}c_d^\gamma \pm r_R\gamma ^2\mathrm{Im}c_d^Z)`$
$`\beta ^2\gamma ^2r_R\mathrm{Re}c_a^Z(\mathrm{Re}c_M^\gamma +r_R\mathrm{Re}c_M^Z))](1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})\},`$
$`D_0^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`4\beta \{[\mathrm{Im}\left[((c_V^\gamma +r_Lc_v^Z)\beta ^2\gamma ^2(c_M^\gamma +r_Lc_M^Z))r_Lc_a^Z\right]`$
$`\gamma ^2(\mathrm{Re}c_v^\gamma +r_L\mathrm{Re}c_v^Z)(\mathrm{Re}c_d^\gamma +r_L\mathrm{Re}c_d^Z)](1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`[\mathrm{Im}\left[((c_V^\gamma +r_Rc_v^Z)\beta ^2\gamma ^2(c_M^\gamma +r_Rc_M^Z))r_Rc_a^Z\right]`$
$`\gamma ^2(\mathrm{Re}c_v^\gamma +r_R\mathrm{Re}c_v^Z)(\mathrm{Re}c_d^\gamma +r_R\mathrm{Re}c_d^Z)](1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})\},`$
$`D_1^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`4\beta ^2\gamma ^2\{[(\mathrm{Re}c_v^\gamma +r_L\mathrm{Re}c_v^Z)(\mathrm{Im}c_M^\gamma `$
$`+r_L\mathrm{Im}c_M^Z)\pm r_L\mathrm{Re}c_a^Z(\mathrm{Re}c_d^\gamma +r_L\mathrm{Re}c_d^Z)](1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`+[(\mathrm{Re}c_v^\gamma +r_R\mathrm{Re}c_v^Z)(\mathrm{Im}c_M^\gamma +r_R\mathrm{Im}c_M^Z)`$
$`\pm r_R\mathrm{Re}c_a^Z(\mathrm{Re}c_d^\gamma +r_R\mathrm{Re}c_d^Z)](1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})\}.`$
The relations

$$r_L=\frac{(\frac{1}{2}x_W)}{(1m_Z^2/s)\sqrt{x_W(1x_W)}}$$

and

$$r_R=\frac{x_W}{(1m_Z^2/s)\sqrt{x_W(1x_W)}}$$

are used in writing the above equation.

Note added in proof The result shown in references  and , that the lepton angular distributions do not depend on anomalous couplings occurring in top decay, has now been shown to be valid even when the $`b`$-quark mass is not neglected, see B. Grzadkowski and Z. Hioki, Phys. Lett. B 557, 55 (2000).


text:
# Some Results Related to Group Actionsin Several Complex Variables

## 1. Fundamentals of several complex variables

About one century ago, Hartogs discovered that there exist some domains in several complex variables on which any holomorphic functions can be extended to larger domains, being different with one complex variable. This causes a basic concept – domain of holomorphy.

Definition.  A domain of holomorphy in $`^n`$ is a domain on which there exists a holomorphic function which can’t be extended holomorphically across any boundary points.

A domain in $`^n`$ is called holomorphically convex, if given any infinite discrete point sequence $`z_k`$ there exists a holomorphic function $`f`$ s.t. $`f(z_k)`$ is unbounded (or $`|f(x_v)|+\mathrm{}`$). Consequently, there exists a holomorphic function which tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ at the boundary. By Cartan-Thullen’s theorem, a domain in $`^n`$ is a domain of holomorphy if and only if the domain is Stein, i.e., holomorphically convex.

Definition.  A function $`\phi `$ with value in $`[\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$ on the domain $`D`$ in $`^n`$ is called plurisubharmonic (p.s.h.): if (i) $`\phi `$ is upper semicontinuous (i.e., $`\{\phi <c\}`$ is open for each $`c`$, or equivalently $`\overline{lim}_{zz_0}\phi (z)`$ $`\phi (z_0)`$ for $`z_0D`$); (ii) for each complex line $`L:=\{z_0+tr:z_0D\},\phi |_{LD}`$ is subharmonic w.r.t. one complex variable $`t`$.

An equivalent definition in the sense of distributions is that $`i\overline{}\phi `$ is a positive current; in particular, when $`\phi `$ is $`C^2`$, this means Levi form $`\left(\frac{^2\phi }{z_i\overline{z}_j}\right)0`$ everywhere. In other words, $`dJd\phi 0`$, where $`J`$ is the complex structure. (If $`i\overline{}\phi >0,`$ then $`\phi `$ is called strictly p.s.h.)

Example.  For a bounded domain or a domain biholomorphic to a bounded domain, the Bergman kernel $`K(z,\overline{z})`$ is strictly p.s.h..

A pseudoconvex domain in $`^n`$ is a domain on which there exists a p.s.h. function which tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ at the boundary. It’s easy to see that a holomorphical convex domain is pseudoconvex, since $`|f|^2`$ is plurisubharmonic function where $`f`$ is given in the consequence of the definition of a Stein domain.

A deep characterization of a domain of holomorphy is given by a solution to Levi problem which is the converse of the above statement.

Fact. A domain $`D`$ in $`^n`$ is a domain of holomorphy if and only if the domain is pseudoconvex.

A natural corresponding concept of the domain of holomorphy in the setting of complex manifolds (complex spaces) is the so-called Stein manifold (Stein space), which is defined as a holomorphically convex and holomorphically separable complex manifold (space) . A complex manifold (or space with finite embedding dimension) is Stein if and only if it is a closed complex submanifold (or subvariety) in some $`^n,`$ and if and only if there exists a strictly p.s.h. exhaustion function which is $``$-valued (i.e., the value $`\mathrm{}`$ is not allowed). A complex reductive Lie group, in particular a complex semisimple Lie group, is a Stein manifold.

We know that a domain of holomorphy or a Stein manifold are defined by special holomorphic functions which are usually hard to construct in several complex variables. However, a pseudoconvex domain is defined by a special p.s.h. function which is a real function and then relatively easy to construct. Construction of various holomorphic objects in several complex variables and complex geometry is a fundamental and difficult problem. An important philosophy here is reducing the construction of holomorphic functions to the construction of plurisubharmonic functions, because of the solution of Levi problem and H$`\ddot{\text{o}}`$rmander’s $`L^2`$ estimates for $`\overline{}`$ and other results.

## 2. Group actions in several complex variables

Definition.  A group action of the group $`G`$ on a set $`X`$ is given by a mapping $`\phi :G\times XX`$ satisfying the following: 1) $`ex=x`$, 2) $`(ab)x)=a(bx)`$, where $`e`$ is the identity of the group, $`a,b,G,xX`$, $`ax:=\phi (a,x)`$.

A group action on a set can be restricted on various cases. When the set is a topological space and the group is a topological group, the action is continuous, then one gets a topological transformation group; when the space is a metric space, the transformation preserves the metric, then one gets a motion group; when the set is a differentiable manifold and the group is a Lie group, the action is differentiable, then one gets a Lie transformation group; when the set is a vector space, the transformation preserves the vector space structure, then one gets a linear transformation group; when the set is an algebraic variety (or a scheme), the group is an algebraic group, and the action is algebraic, one gets an algebraic transformation group; when the set is a complex space, the transformation is holomorphic, and the action is real analytic, then one gets a (real) holomorphic transformation group (note that in this case, if the action is continuous then it is also real analytic); if the set is a complex space, the group is a complex Lie group, and the the action is holomorphic, then one gets a complex (holomorphic) transformation group.

In this talk, we’re mainly concerned with the last case. We consider a complex Lie group $`G_{}`$ with a real form $`G_{}`$ acting holomorphically on a complex manifold (also called holomorphic $`G_{}`$\- manifold) and a $`G_{}`$-invariant domain. It’s known that a complex reductive Lie group has a unique maximal compact subgroup up to conjugate as its real form, but it also has many noncompact real forms.

A group action on a set can be regarded as a representation of the group on the whole group of transformations. An effective group action means the representation is faithful, so it corresponds to a (closed) subgroup of the whole transformation group.

Actually, many domains in several complex variables such as Hartogs, circular, Reinhardt and tube domains can be formulated in the setting of group actions.

Examples.  a) Hartogs and circular domains: consider the Hartogs action of $`^{}`$ with the real form $`S^1`$ on $`^n`$: $`^{}\times ^n^n`$ given by $`(t,(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n))(tz_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_n)`$, then Hartogs domain is $`S^1`$-invariant domain; consider the circular action of $`^{}`$ with the real form $`S^1`$ on $`^n`$: $`^{}\times ^n^n`$ given by $`(t,(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n))(tz_1,tz_2,\mathrm{},tz_n)`$, then circular domain is $`S^1`$-invariant domain.

b) Reinhardt domains: consider the Reinhardt action of $`(^{})^n`$ on $`^n`$ given by

$$((t_1,\mathrm{},t_n),(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n))(t_1z_1,\mathrm{},t_nz_n),$$

then Reinhardt domain is $`(S^1)^n`$-invariant domain. One can similarly defines matrix Reinhardt domains

c) tube domains: consider the action of $`^n`$ on $`^n`$ given by $`(r,z)r+z`$, then $`^n`$-invariant domain is tube domain.

d) future tube: let $`M^4`$ be the Minkowski space with the Lorentz metric: $`xy=x_0y_0x_1y_1x_2y_2x_3y_3,`$ where $`x=(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3),y=(y_0,y_1,y_2,y_3)R^4;`$ let $`V^+`$ and $`V^{}=V^+`$ be the future and past light cones in $`R^4`$ respectively, i.e. $`V^\pm =\{yM:y^2>0,\pm y_0>0\}`$, the corresponding tube domains $`\tau ^\pm =T^{V^\pm }=R^4+iV^\pm `$ in $`^4`$ are called future and past tubes; let $`L`$ be the Lorentz group, i.e. $`L=O(1,3),`$ $`L`$ has four connected components, denote the identity component of $`L`$ by $`L_+^{},`$ which is called the restricted Lorentz group, i.e. $`L_+^{}=SO_+(1,3);`$ let $`L()`$ be the complex Lorentz group, i.e.$`L=O(1,3,)O(4,),L()`$ has two connected components, denote the identity component of $`L()`$ by $`L_+(),`$ called the proper complex Lorentz group which has the restricted Lorentz group as its real form. Considering the linear action of $`L_+()`$ on $`^4`$, the future (or past) tube is $`L_+^{}`$-invariant.

Denote the $`N`$-point future tube by $`\tau _N^\pm =\tau ^\pm \times \mathrm{}\times \tau ^\pm `$ $`N`$-times, let $`L_+()`$ act diagonally on $`^{4N},`$ i.e. for $`z=(z^{(1)},\mathrm{},z^{(N)})^{4N},z=(z^{(1)},\mathrm{},z^{(N)})`$ where $`L_+(),`$ then $`\tau _N^\pm `$ is $`L_+^{},`$-invariant.

e) matrix Reinhardt domains: let $`^n[m\times m]=\{(Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n)`$: $`Z_j[m\times m]\}`$ be the space of $`n`$-tuples of $`m\times m`$ matrices. A domain $`DC^n[m\times m]`$ is called matrix Reinhardt if it is invariant under the diagonal $`\mathrm{U}(m)\times \mathrm{U}(m)`$ action $`(U,V)(Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n)(UZ_1V,\mathrm{},UZ_nV)`$. These domains are the usual Reinhardt domains in the case $`m=1`$. Diag$`(D)`$ is defined as the intersection of $`D`$ with the diagonal matrices $`(Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_n)^n[m\times m]`$

Slice theory

When $`G`$ is a Lie transformation group properly acting on a smooth manifold $`X`$ (e.g. when $`G`$ is compact), one has a satisfactory slice theory about the structure of a neighborhood of an orbit. This theory was extended to the case of an affine reductive group action regularly on an affine variety by D. Luna () and the case of a complex reductive Lie group $`G`$ action holomorphically on a Stein space $`X`$ by Snow (). In these cases, the structure of a neighborhood of a closed orbit is finely determined. We state the result for reduced Stein spaces. Let $`Gx`$ be a closed orbit, then there exists a locally closed $`G_x`$-invariant Stein subspace $`B`$ containing $`x`$ s.t. the natural map from the homogeneous fiber bundle $`G\times _{G_x}B`$ over $`G/G_xGx`$ is biholomorphic onto a $`\pi `$-saturated open Stein subset of $`X`$, where $`\pi :XX//G`$ is the categorical quotient (or GIT quotient) which exists as a Stein space. Here $`B`$ is called a slice at $`x`$. The slice $`B`$ is transversal to the closed orbit $`Gx`$. When $`X`$ is regular at $`x`$, then $`B`$ can be chosen to be regular.

As a consequence of the slice theorem, one has a stratification of the categorical quotient $`X//G`$ at least when $`X`$ is a Stein manifold. The stratum with maximal dimension is Zariski open in $`X//G`$ and is contained in the regular part of $`X//G.`$ This is called principal stratum. The inverse of the principal stratum under $`\pi :XX//G`$ consists of all $`G`$-closed orbits satisfying that they are of maximal dimension $`k`$ among the dimensions of all $`G`$-closed orbits and their corresponding isotropy groups are of minimum number of components. Such orbits are called principal closed orbits, and the corresponding isotropy groups are called principal. When $`k=dimG`$, then $`X`$ is called having FPIG.

## 3. Some results on compact holomorphic transformation groups

The relationship between orbit connectedness, orbit convexity, and holomorphical convexity goes back to the beginning of this century, when several complex variables was born. Due to Hartogs, Reinhardt, H.Cartan and others, one already knew some classical relations between completeness, logarithmic convexity and holomorphical convexity for circular domains, Hartogs domains, and Reinhardt domains. The orbit connectedness and orbit convexity are defined in a general setting (for arbitrary compact connected Lie group), which correspond to completeness and logarithmic convexity when one restricts to the above domains.

There are some fundamental relationships between orbit connectedness and orbit convexity with holomorphically convexity and envelope of holomorphy for invariant domains.

Definition.  Let $`G_{}`$ be a connected complex Lie group, $`G_{}`$ be a connected closed real form of $`G_{}.`$ Let $`X`$ be a holomorphic $`G_{}`$-space, $`DX`$ be a $`G_{}`$-invariant set, we call $`D`$ orbit connected, if for $`b_z:G_{}X,ggz,b_z^1(D)`$ is connected for each $`zD.`$ When $`(G_{},G_{})`$ is a geodesic convex pair(i.e. the map $`\mathrm{Lie}(\mathrm{G}_{})\times \mathrm{G}_{}(\mathrm{v},\mathrm{g})\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{iv})\mathrm{g}\mathrm{G}_{}`$ is a homeomorphism, cf. ), $`D`$ is called orbit convex if for each $`zD,`$ and $`vi\mathrm{Lie}(\mathrm{G}_{})`$ s.t. $`\mathrm{exp}(v)b_z^1(D)`$ it follows $`\mathrm{exp}(tv)b_z^1(D)`$ for all $`t[0,1]`$.

Roughly speaking, orbit connectedness means that $`G_{}xD`$ is connected for every $`xD`$.

One has known for a long time that the envelope of holomorphy of a domain in $`^n`$ (or more general a Riemann domain over $`^n`$) exists uniquely as a Riemann domain over $`^n`$. There is a difficult problem of univalence: When is the envelope of holomorphy of a domain in $`^n`$ itself a domain in $`^n`$? We have the following criteria for the univalence of the envelope of holomorphy for certain invariant domains:

Theorem 1 (). Let $`X`$ be a Stein manifold, $`K^{}`$ be a complex reductive Lie group holomorphically acting on $`X`$, where $`K`$ is a connected compact Lie group and $`K^{}`$ be its universal complexification. Let $`DX`$ be a $`K`$-invariant orbit connected domain. Then the envelope of holomorphy $`E(D)`$ of $`D`$ is schlicht and orbit convex if and only if the envelope of holomorphy $`E(K^{}D)`$ of $`K^{}D`$ is schlicht. Furthermore, in this case, $`E(K^{}D)=K^{}E(D).`$

When $`K=S^1`$ and the action is circular (or $`\alpha `$-circular) and Hartogs, the corresponding concepts of orbit connectedness for such domains were introduced separately and the above results were obtained and stated separately by Casadio Tarabushi and Trapani in .

When $`K=(S^1)^n`$ and the action is Reinhardt, the result is well known as a classical result about Reinhardt domain which asserts that any Reinhardt domain in $`(^{})^n`$ has schlicht envelope of holomorphy.

Some other results were also included in the above theorem. So our result can also be regarded as an extension of their results and the classical result on Reinhardt domains in a unified way.

In the proof, a theorem due to Harish-Chandra on the infinite dimensional representation of Lie groups plays an important role.

We also give some examples of orbit connected domains. Let $`X=K^{}/L^{},`$ the action of $`K^{}`$ on $`X`$ be given by the left translations. When $`L`$ is connected or $`(K,L)`$ is a symmetric pair, then any $`K`$-invariant domain is orbit connected. The simplest example is Reinhardt domains in $`(^{})^n.`$

The origin of orbit connectedness could at least go back to .

Example.  A theorem of V.Bargmann, D. Hall and A.S. Wightman (cf. Wightman , Jost , Streater-Wightman ) asserts that $`\tau _N^+`$ is orbit connected.

We also consider the homogeneous embeddings of $`K^{}/L^{}`$. Let $`X`$ be a smooth homogeneous space embedding of $`K^{}/L^{}`$, $`DX`$ be a $`K`$-domain. Assume that $`L`$ is connected or $`(K,L)`$ is a symmetric pair. Then $`E(D)`$ is schlicht and orbit convex. In particular, every matrix Reinhardt domain of holomorphy $`D`$ is orbit convex. Since an orbit convex matrix Reinhardt domain has a path connected Diag$`(D)`$, so a matrix Reinhardt domain of holomorphy has a connected Diag$`(D)`$.

Theorem 2().  Let $`K`$ be a connected compact Lie group, $`L`$ be a closed (not necessarily connected) subgroup of $`K`$. Let $`K^{}`$ and $`L^{}`$ be respectively universal complexification of $`K`$ and $`L`$. Suppose that $`D`$ is $`K`$-invariant relatively compact domain in $`K^{}/L^{}`$ (Here the action of $`K^{}`$ is given by left translations). Then (i) $`\text{Aut}(D)`$ is a compact Lie group; (ii) Any proper holomorphic self-mapping of $`D`$ is biholomorphic if $`K`$ is semisimple or a direct product of a semisimple compact Lie group and a compact torus.

By a result of Matsushima, $`K^{}/L^{}`$ is a Stein manifold which is a holomorphic $`K^{}`$ \- manifold w.r.t. left translation action.

The motivations of the present work are two-folds: the result (i) is to extend a main result of , where the same result was obtained by requiring a restrictive condition that $`(K,L)`$ is a symmetric pair,i.e., $`K/L`$ is a compact Riemannian symmetric space; the result (ii) is to extend a classical result which asserts that proper self mapping of the relatively compact Reinhardt domains in $`(^{})^n`$ is biholomorphic.

The proof is involved with many famous results such as Mostow decomposition theorem, H. Cartan’s theorem about compactness of automorphism groups, Andreotti-Frankel’s theorem on homology group of a Stein manifold, the holomorphic version of de Rham’s theorem on a Stein manifold, a result of Milnor’s about CW complex, a result from iteration theory, Poincaré duality theorem, degree theory for proper mappings, covering lifting existence theorem, and a result about compact semisimple Lie groups et al.

## 4. Extended future tube conjecture

Let’s keep the notation in Example d of the section 2. The set $`\tau _N^{}:=\{z:z\tau _N^+,L_+()\}`$ is called the extended future tube.

The extended future tube conjecture, which arose naturally from axiomatic quantum field theory at the end of 1950’s, asserts that the extended future tube $`\tau _N^{}`$ is a domain of holomorphy for $`N3.`$ This conjecture turns out to be very beautiful and natural. In their papers, Vladimirov and Sergeev said that the importance of the conjecture is also due to the fact that there are some assertions in QFT, such as the finite covariance theorem of Bogoliubov-Vladimirov, proved only assuming that this conjecture is true.

According to the axiomatic quantum field theory (cf. ), one may describe physical properties of a quantum system using the Wightman functions which correspond to holomorphic functions in $`\tau _N^+`$ invariant w.r.t. the diagonal action of $`L_+^{}`$. This sort of functions have the following extension property.

BHW Theorem (due to Bargman, Hall, and Wightman 1957). An $`L_+^{}`$-invariant holomorphic function on $`\tau _N^+`$ can be extended to an $`L_+()`$-invariant holomorphic function on $`\tau _N^{}`$ (cf. ).

In the proof, the orbit connectedness of $`\tau _N^+`$ play a key role. With this and Identity Theorem, one can easily define the invariant holomorphic extension.

So, a natural question arises, i.e., can these holomorphic functions be extended further? Or, is $`\tau _N^{}`$ holomorphic convex w.r.t. $`L_+()`$-invariant holomorphic function? After some argument, this is equivalent to ask if $`\tau _N^{}`$ is a domain of holomorphy.

Streater’s theorem. A holomorphic function on the Dyson domain $`\tau _N^+\tau _N^{}J`$ (where $`J:=\tau _N^{}M^{4N}`$ is the set of Jost points which was proved to exist and characterized by R. Jost) can be extended to a holomorphic function on $`\tau _N^{}`$ (cf. ).

So, a natural question is to construct the envelope of holomorphy of the Dyson domain $`\tau _N^+\tau _N^{}J`$ (This question is mentioned in the article “Quantum field theory” of the Russian’s great dictionary “Encyclopedia of Mathematics”). That the extended future tube conjecture holds is equivalent to that this envelope of holomorphy is exactly the extended future tube $`\tau _N^{}`$.

The conjecture have been mentioned as an open problem in many classical () and recent references (\[11,21-24,28-31\]) and references therein. In , we found a route to solve the conjecture via Kiselman-Loeb’s minimum principle and Luna’s slice theory. Let’s recall the minimum principle.

Minimum principle

Let $`X`$ be a complex manifold, $`G_{}`$ a connected complex Lie group, $`G_{}`$ a connected closed real form of $`G_{}`$. Denote $`\psi :G_{}G_{}/G_{}`$, and $`p:X\times G_{}X`$ the natural projections.

$`G_{}`$ acts on $`X\times G_{}`$ on the right by:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (X\times G_{})\times G_{}& & X\times G_{}\hfill \\ \hfill ((x,g),h)& & (x,gh)\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }X\times G_{}`$ be a right $`G_{}`$-invariant domain and have connected fibres of $`p`$; and $`uC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a right $`G_{}`$-invariant function. $`u`$ naturally induces a smooth function $`\dot{u}(x,\psi (g))`$ on $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}:=(id_X,\psi )(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Suppose that (1) $`u`$ is p.s.h on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, (2) $`xp(\mathrm{\Omega }),u(x,)`$ is strictly p.s.h. on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=\mathrm{\Omega }p^1(x)`$, and (3) $`\dot{u}(x,)`$ is exhaustive on $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_x=\psi (\mathrm{\Omega }_x)`$, then the minimum principle asserts that $`v(x)=\underset{g\mathrm{\Omega }_x}{inf}u(x,g)`$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ and p.s.h. on $`p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Remark.  C.O. Kiselman in  first obtained the minimum principle when $`X=^n,G_{}=^m,G_{}=Im^m`$ , J.J. Loeb in  generalized Kiselman’s result to the present general case.

It’s easy to construct invariant p.s.h. functions w.r.t. compact Lie group via “averaging technique”. However, such a technique doesn’t hold again for non compact Lie group.

Observation.  Let $`G`$ be a real Lie group which acts on $`^n`$ linearly. Let $`D`$ be a Bergman hyperbolic domain which is $`G`$-invariant. Then the Bergman kernel $`K_D(z,\overline{w})`$ satisfies $`K_D(z,\overline{z})=K_D(gz,\overline{gz})`$ for $`gG,`$ when $`G`$ is compact; when $`G`$ is semisimple, we have $`K_D(z,\overline{w})=K_D(gz,\overline{gw})`$.

Brief proof is as follows. Since $`G`$ linearly act on $`^n`$, one has a representation $`GGL(n,)`$; if $`G`$ is semisimple, then the image of $`G`$ must be in $`SL(n,);`$ if $`G`$ is compact, the image of $`G`$ is in $`U(n)`$. Using the transformation formula for the Bergman kernels and noting that the determinant of the Jacobian of the map $`zgz`$ is 1 for semisimple case, and is in $`S^1`$ for compact case, then we can get the result.

We consider the following question: Let $`X`$ be a Stein manifold, $`G_{}`$ be a connected complex reductive Lie group acting on $`X`$ s.t. the action is holomorphic, $`G_{}`$ a connected real form of $`G_{}`$. Let $`DX`$ be a $`G_{}`$-invariant orbit connected Stein domain, is $`G_{}D`$ also Stein?

When $`G_{}`$ is compact, the answer is positive (cf. ). This is a special case of Theorem 1 in the section 3.

The extended future tube conjecture is a special case of the question, where $`X=^{4N},G_{}=L_+(),G_{}=L_+^{},D=\tau _N^+,G_{}D=\tau _N^{}`$

Consider $`X\times G_{}\stackrel{\rho }{}X,\rho (x,g)=g^1x`$. Suppose that there is a suitable $`G_{}`$-invariant s.p.s.h. function $`\phi `$ on $`D`$. We have a p.s.h. function $`u(x,g)=\phi (g^1x)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho ^1(D).`$ Define $`\psi (x)=\underset{g\mathrm{\Omega }_x}{inf}u(x,g)`$ for $`xp(\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ where $`p:X\times G_{}X`$ is given by $`p(x,g)=x,`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x:=\{gG_{}:(X,g)\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$.

In order to prove $`\psi (x)`$ is p.s.h. on $`p(\mathrm{\Omega })=G_{}D,`$ we can use the minimum principle due to Kiselman-Loeb.

Observation.  $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$ is connected if and only if $`D`$ is orbit connected.

In order to use the minimum principle, we still need to check two assumptions: (i) $`u(x,)`$ is s.p.s.h. on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x;`$ (ii) $`\dot{u}(x,)`$ is exhaustion on $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_x,`$ where $`\dot{u}(x,\psi (g))`$ is defined on $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}=(id,\psi )(\mathrm{\Omega })X\times G_{}/G_{}`$ and is induced by $`u,\psi :G_{}G_{}/G_{},\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_x=\psi (\mathrm{\Omega }_x).`$ Usually speaking, assumption (i) fails on the whole $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. However, when $`X`$ has FPIG, then the assumption (i) is fulfilled on a Zariski open subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`X^{}:=\{xX:G_{}x\text{is closed},(G_{})_x`$ is principal and finite $`\},`$ then, by the slice theory, $`A=X\backslash A^{}`$ is a $`G_{}`$-invariant analytic subset of $`X`$. Let $`D^{}=DX^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}:=\rho ^1(D^{}),`$ then the assumption (i) is satisfied on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. If the assumption (ii) is also satisfied on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, then we can use the minimum principle on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and get that $`\psi (x)`$ is p.s.h. on $`p(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})=G_{}D\backslash A`$ since $`\psi (x)`$ is upper semicontinuous on $`G_{}D,`$ by the extension theorem for p.s.h. functions, $`\psi (x)`$ can be extended to a p.s.h. function on $`G_{}D.`$

If we can prove that the extended p.s.h. function is weak exhaustion, then $`G_{}D`$ is Stein.

As a consequence of our observations, we deduce that the general question is true for pseudoconvex pair ($`G_{},G_{}`$) (i.e., there exists a $`G_{}`$-invariant p.s.h. function on $`G_{}`$ which is exhaustion on $`G_{}/G_{}`$(cf.), which include the case when $`G_{}`$ is compact and nilpotent(cf.). However it’s pity that $`(L_+(),L_+^{}`$) is not a pseudoconvex pair.

In the case of the extended future tube conjecture, we proved that the assumption (ii) in the minimum principle is satisfied and the constructed function is weak exhaustion. These are the main technical difficulties. We overcome them and finished our proof via a consideration of the matrix form of the conjecture and explicit calculations based on Hua’s work and matrix techniques ().

Theorem .  The extended future tube conjecture is true.

A.G. Sergeev posed an interesting idea to attack the mentioned question. He assumed an invariant version of Cartan’s lemma: if $`AD`$ is a $`G_{}`$-invariant analytic subset, $`f𝒪(A)^G_{}`$, then there exists an $`F𝒪(D)^G_{}`$ s.t. $`F|A=f.`$ If this is the case, we can prove that $`\pi (D)`$ is Stein in $`X//G_{}`$. In order to prove it, it’s sufficient to prove $`\pi (D)`$ is holomorphically convex. Let $`\{y_n\}\pi (D)`$ be an arbitrary discrete set. Then $`\{\pi ^1(y_n)\}D`$ is a $`G_{}`$-invariant analytic subset in $`D`$. By the assumption, then there exists a $`G_{}`$-invariant holomorhic function $`F`$ on $`D`$ s.t. $`F|_{\pi ^1}(y_n)=n.`$ Since $`𝒪(\pi (D))𝒪(D)^G_{},`$ then we get a holomorphic function on $`\pi (D)`$ which is unbounded on $`\{y_n\}.`$ This means that $`\pi (D)`$ is holomorphically convex, and then $`\pi ^1(\pi (D))`$ is also Stein. When $`\pi ^1(\pi (D))=G_{}D,`$ i.e., $`G_{}D`$ is $`\pi `$-saturated, then $`G_{}D`$ is Stein.

It seems to be hard to prove directly the invariant version of Cartan’s lemma for a noncompact Lie group $`G_{}`$, although it’s trivially the case for a compact Lie group. Actually, we have the following:

Proposition ().  Suppose, furthermore, $`G_{}D`$ is $`\pi `$-saturated. Then the invariant version of Cartan’s lemma holds if and only if $`G_{}D`$ is Stein.

However, we recently observed that it should be possible to directly give an answer to the above question based on $`L^2`$-methods and group actions.