text:
# 1 The error in the extraction of 𝛾 as a function of 𝛾. Solid curves are the error due to the uncertainty in the SU(3) assumption, for 4 different values of 𝛽. The dashed curve is the error due to charm penguins.

A new method to measure the CP violating phase $`\gamma `$ using $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays

R.E. Blanco, C. Göbel, and R. Méndez–Galain

Instituto de Física, Facultad de Ingeniería, Univ. de la República,
CC 30, CP 11000 Montevideo, Uruguay

## Abstract

A new and simple procedure to measure the angle $`\gamma `$ from $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays using SU(3) symmetry is presented. It is based on a full Dalitz plot analysis of these decays. All diagrams, including strong and electroweak penguins, are considered in the procedure. The method is also free from final state interaction problems. The theoretical error in the extraction of $`\gamma `$ within the method should be of the order of $`10^\mathrm{o}`$ or even less. Taking into account the B-meson production in the first generation of B factories and recent measurements from CLEO, this method could bring the best measurement of $`\gamma `$ in the next years.

To appear in Physical Review Letters

For the next years, large accelerator facilities known as B factories are going to be running. The goal is to produce a large amount of B mesons because their decay should be sensitive to CP violation. As a consequence, one hopes to measure the three Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) angles $`\alpha arg(V_{td}V_{tb}^{}/V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}),\beta arg(V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}/V_{td}V_{tb}^{})`$ and $`\gamma arg(V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}/V_{cd}V_{cb}^{})`$ to check the standard model predictions. It is not yet clear which precise measurements will allow a clean extraction of $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$. Concerning the last angle, many interesting methods have been proposed so far but all of them suffer from either experimental or theoretical problems. On the one side, theoretically clean procedures based in $`BDK`$ decays suffer from important experimental difficulties and would demand about 10 years of data taking in order to extract $`\gamma `$ with an error, at least, of the order of 15o. On the other side, other methods based in $`B\pi \pi `$, $`B\pi K`$ or $`BKK`$ decays have theoretical uncertainties which would imply systematic errors in the extraction of $`\gamma `$ as large as 20o . It is then worth looking for new experimental procedures to extract $`\gamma `$ with smaller uncertainties.

Methods proposed so far to measure $`\gamma `$ are based in the study of branching ratio asymmetries in two body decays. In a previous letter we showed that three body decays could be a more interesting tool to extract CP violating phases. The idea is to make use of the fact that Dalitz plot analysis of a three body decay gives a direct measurement of amplitudes instead of branching ratios. In other words, one has a direct access to the phase of a given process. In ref.  we have illustrated this general remark applying it to the extraction of $`\gamma `$ studying the decay $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ . We showed that, due to this direct experimental access to phases, $`\gamma `$ could be extracted with a smaller statistical error than the usual methods based in two body decays existing in the literature. Unfortunately, the method suffers from one difficulty also existing in two body decays, i.e., penguin pollution: the bigger is the unmeasured penguin contribution compared to the tree one, the larger is the systematic error of the method.

In this letter, making a full use of Dalitz plot analysis features, we present a first procedure to extract $`\gamma `$ using three body decays which takes penguin contributions explicitly into account. The method is based in a combined study of two pairs of CP conjugated decays $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ related by SU(3) symmetry. It is free from final state interaction and electroweak penguin problems. The theoretical error of the method is due to SU(3) breaking and the uncertainty about charm penguin diagrams. Considering present expectation values for $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta `$, we estimate this error to be of the order of 10o or even less. This value is smaller than that of other methods experimentally accessible within a few years.

Let us start the description of the method by presenting the main features of Dalitz plot analysis in our context. Three body decays of heavy mesons seem to be dominated by intermediate resonant decays. All these partial intermediate channels, together with the direct non-resonant channel interfere to give the same — detected — three body final state. The Dalitz plot analysis is a powerful tool that yields a clear separation of all these intermediate channels; moreover, it brings a direct measurement of the amplitude, i.e., magnitude and phase, of the contribution of all the intermediate processes. As phases are always measured with respect to a given one, in order to extract a weak phase with this method, one needs at least two distinct channels with different weak phase .

This is the case for the two pairs of decays $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ considered here, thanks to the presence of $`\chi _{c0}`$ as a possible intermediate resonance. Indeed, the contribution $`𝒜(B^\pm \chi _{c0}𝒫^\pm )\times 𝒜(\chi _{c0}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ (where $`𝒫=\pi `$ or $`K`$) has no weak phase while for the other possible channels — as for example those mediated by a $`\rho ^0`$ or $`f_0`$ resonances — the tree contribution has weak phase $`\gamma `$.

Final state interaction problems do not affect this method. One can easily get rid of them by choosing a contribution mediated by an isospin 0 resonance — such as an $`f_0`$ or a possible $`\sigma `$ resonance. Indeed, a $`B^\pm f_0𝒫^\pm `$ decay for example, proceeds through a unique isospin amplitude. Thus, the method presented in this letter is completely free from final state interaction difficulties. In the following, we will present the method using a $`B^\pm f_0𝒫^\pm `$ decay.

Besides tree contributions driven by the weak phase $`\gamma `$, $`𝒜(B^\pm f_0𝒫^\pm )`$ has also penguin contributions with different weak phases. For $`𝒫=\pi `$, top penguin diagrams have weak phase $`\beta `$ and charm penguin ones have no weak phase; on the other side, for $`𝒫=K`$, both top and charm penguins have no weak phase. Thus, for the four decays, the $`f_0`$ amplitudes are written as

$$A_1=Te^{i(\delta _T+\gamma )}+P_te^{i(\delta _{P_t}\beta )}+P_ce^{i\delta _{P_c}}$$
(1)
$$A_2=Te^{i(\delta _T\gamma )}+P_te^{i(\delta _{P_t}+\beta )}+P_ce^{i\delta _{P_c}}$$
(2)
$$A_3=T^{}e^{i(\delta _T^{}+\gamma )}+P^{}e^{i\delta _P^{}}$$
(3)
$$A_4=T^{}e^{i(\delta _T^{}\gamma )}+P^{}e^{i\delta _P^{}}$$
(4)
where $`A_1=𝒜(B^+f_0\pi ^+)`$, $`A_2=𝒜(B^{}f_0\pi ^{})`$, $`A_3=𝒜(B^+f_0K^+)`$ and $`A_4=𝒜(B^{}f_0K^{})`$. In the expressions above, $`\delta _T,\delta _T^{},\delta _{P_t},\delta _{P_c}`$ and $`\delta _P^{}`$ are strong (CP conserving) phases, $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$ contain both tree and color suppressed contributions, $`P_t`$ includes all strong and electroweak penguin diagrams with weak phase $`\beta `$, $`P_c`$ includes all those with no weak phase and $`P^{}`$ includes all penguins. In other words, Eqs. (14) include all kind of diagrams contributing to these decays. Some of these decays can be related by SU(3) symmetry, as we will see below.

The left-hand sides in Eqs. (14), i.e. $`A_i,(i=1,\mathrm{},4)`$, are directly measured complex numbers, that is, 8 real independent quantities. This is one of the main claims of this letter: Dalitz plot analysis brings more independent measurements than usual two body branching ratios; one thus has more information available for each decay that can be used to treat penguin and other pollutions.

As a first step, we will exclude from our analysis charm penguin contributions which appear only in the first two equations. Note that this is not a strong assumption. Indeed, in $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays, as in $`B\pi \pi `$, one expects penguin contributions to be of the order of 20% of tree ones. Moreover, charm penguin amplitudes are expected to be not larger than half of top ones. Thus, in order to resolve in $`\gamma `$ in Eqs. (14), the influence of charm penguin is expected to be small. In spite of this, in the last part of this letter, we will explicitly study their influence in our results.

Now, we make use of SU(3) flavor symmetry. All contributions included in $`T^{}`$ are identical to those in $`T`$ except for an $`s`$ quark replacing a light one. (Note that one cannot make the same assumption for the penguin sector because in $`P_t`$ there are two different topologies while in $`P^{}`$ there is only one.) One can then write,

$$T^{}=\lambda T$$
(5)
$$\delta _T^{}=\delta _T$$
(6)
where $`\lambda =V_{us}/V_{ud}0.2.`$

The validity of these assumptions will be discussed later in this letter.

One then has a system with 8 real equations and 8 unknown quantities. After a simple algebra to eliminate unwanted quantities, one can reduce the set of 8 equations to a simpler system containing the desired variable $`\gamma `$:

$$\frac{e^{i(\delta _T\gamma )}e^{i(\delta _T+\gamma +2\beta )}}{|e^{i(\delta _T+\gamma )}e^{i(\delta _T\gamma )}|}=\frac{\lambda (A_2A_1e^{i2\beta })}{|A_3A_4|}$$
(7)
$$arg(A_3A_4)=arg(e^{i(\delta _T+\gamma )}e^{i(\delta _T\gamma )}).$$
(8)
This system, containing 3 real equations, allows us to obtain $`\gamma `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\delta _T`$. At this stage, one could expect this method to provide not only a measurement of $`\gamma `$ but also an independent measurement of $`\beta `$. Unfortunately, this is only true if Eqs. (7) and (8) were exact. This is not the case due to the theoretical assumptions made above. The question is how does any error in these equations propagate to the actual extraction of $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta `$.

We found that $`\beta `$ is too sensitive to small uncertainties in these equations. This is simply due to the fact that $`\beta `$ is only present in in Eqs. (1) and (2), in a term which is small. Thus, small uncertainties in coefficients $`A_{1,2}`$ imply large uncertainties in $`\beta `$.

As a consequence, the method is not well suited to providing an independent measurement of $`\beta `$. Fortunately, in the next years, the phase $`\beta `$ will be known within an error of a few degrees. Our strategy is thus to consider $`\beta `$ as a known parameter. We then have two independent variables, $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta _T`$ with only two equations, e.g., real and imaginary parts of Eq. (7) .

Let us now study the theoretical errors of the method and their influence in the extraction of $`\gamma `$. The sources of systematic errors are 1) the validity of SU(3) symmetry assumptions and 2) charm penguins.

SU(3) symmetry is only assumed for those terms carrying the weak phase $`\gamma `$, i.e., diagrams included in $`T`$. This point represents another important issue of this method: one does not need to make SU(3) assumptions about penguin contributions. The two main contributions to $`T`$ are tree and color suppressed diagrams. Factorization corrections to exact SU(3) symmetry in both diagrams transform Eq. (5) in

$$T^{}=\frac{f_K}{f_\pi }\lambda T$$
(9)
where $`f_K`$ and $`f_\pi `$ are the kaon and pion decay constants, respectively. As $`f_K/f_\pi 1.2`$, this represents a 20% correction with respect to the assumption of exact SU(3) symmetry of Eq. (5). The importance of non-factorizable corrections to Eq. (9) is not yet clear but there are usually assumed to be small. Both theoretical  and experimental educated studies seem to favor non-factorizable corrections not larger than 10%.

We have studied numerically the influence of this uncertainty when solving Eqs. (7). For this, after changing (5) to (9) we have assumed an extra 10% theoretical uncertainty in the relation between $`T^{}`$ and $`T`$ and studied the propagation of this error in the extraction of $`\gamma `$. More precisely, we have first assumed a given set of values for the various parameters entering the right-hand-sides of Eqs. (14) — including $`\gamma `$. With them, we have calculated the quantities $`A_i,(i=1,\mathrm{},4)`$, using Eqs. (14) considering explicitly a 10% correction to (9). Then we have solved the system of Eqs. (7) — which assumes that there is no such a correction — to find $`\gamma `$. We have finally compared the latter with the originally assumed value for $`\gamma `$.

We found that the amount of this error in extracting $`\gamma `$ only depends on the actual value of $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta `$, as shown in Fig. 1. This error was found to be independent of the actual values of $`T,P_t,P^{},\delta _T,\delta _{P_t}`$ and $`\delta _P^{}`$. Fig. 1 shows that the smaller $`\beta `$, the larger the errors. When $`\beta 0`$, the error diverges. This is simply because, when $`\beta `$ is exactly zero, Eqs. (14) with $`P_c=0`$, are no longer independent; thus Eqs. (7) only admit solutions when SU(3) symmetry assumption is exact.

The other assumption related to the SU(3) symmetry, i.e., Eq. (6), has no influence in the result. To find this, we proceeded in the same way as described above — this time assuming $`\delta _T^{}\delta _T`$ when calculating $`A_i`$. We found that the error in finding $`\gamma `$ due to this assumption is always negligible, independently of the values of $`T,P_t,P^{},\delta _T,\delta _{P_t},\delta _P^{},\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$.

Let us now consider the error due to charm penguins. They would only affect Eqs. (1) and (2) since in the $`B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays charm penguins have the same weak phase as top ones and are thus already included in $`P^{}`$. This is a crucial remark, because in the $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay $`P_t/T`$ is expected to be small; thus, as $`\gamma `$ is present in the T-term, any error in the penguin sector is less important. The actual importance of these neglected terms is in fact unknown at present, but a crude estimate gives $`0.2P_c/P_t0.5`$.

The theoretical uncertainty in the value of this ratio propagates to the actual extraction of $`\gamma `$. To estimate the amount of this error, we made the same kind of numerical analysis as described above to the study of SU(3) symmetry assumptions. In other words, we have calculated the quantities $`A_i`$ assuming that $`P_c`$ is not zero, and then solve Eqs. (7) — where $`P_c`$ is not present. We found that in this case, the error in the extraction of $`\gamma `$ does not depend on the actual value of $`\beta `$, but it does depend on the value of $`\gamma `$, as shown in the dashed curve of Fig. 1. As in the SU(3) case, these results are independent of the actual values of $`\delta _T,\delta _P,\delta _P^{}`$ and $`P^{}`$. Nevertheless, the dashed curve in Fig. 1 does depend on the actual value of $`P_t/T`$. More precisely, the error is proportional to the value of this ratio. Results presented in Fig. 1 have been obtained using the expected values of $`P_t/T=0.2`$ , $`P_c/P_t=0.35`$  and $`\delta _{P_c}=\delta _{P_t}`$ . These results do not change if the last assumption is released, and change little if $`P_c/P_t`$ takes another value within the range 0.2 – 0.5.

Finally, we have studied how an uncertainty in $`\beta `$ propagates to the extraction of $`\gamma `$. Assuming $`\beta `$ is known with an error of 3o – which is the expected error after 4 years of running of BaBar and Belle – this contributes with less than 1o in the error to extract $`\gamma `$.

Let us now analyse the total theoretical error of the method. Adding in quadrature all the errors we have discussed above, we conclude the following. If $`\beta `$ is 50o or more, the total error of the method is always small: 5o or less. If $`\beta `$ turns out to have the central value estimated by Standard Model predictions, i.e. 25o (which is also in reasonable agreement with recent reports from Belle and BaBar), then the error may be larger: if $`\gamma `$ is in the range 50o – 80o, as dictated by an overall analysis of the unitary triangle, then the error is of the order of 11o; if $`\gamma `$ is in the range 100o – 130o, as suggested by experimental constraints based in non-leptonic B decays, then the error in extracting $`\gamma `$ is of the order of 5o to 8o.

All these values for the theoretical error are smaller that what one expects from other methods to extract $`\gamma `$, proposed so far. This is valid as far as the value of $`\beta `$ is larger than 10o.

It is important to stress that the method is also self contained for the determination of its systematic error. Indeed, once the actual values of $`\gamma `$ and $`P_t/T`$ are determined from the experiment, the systematic error can easily be read from the numerical study made above.

Our last comment deals with the experimental feasibility of this procedure. The channels involved in the analysis only require the measurement of charged pions and kaons and do not require the necessity of tagging (since the method only deals with charged B meson decays). In ref.  we made a simulation of $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays; we showed that the extraction of partial amplitudes – i.e., what we call $`A_i,(i=1,\mathrm{},4)`$ in this letter – could be done, with relatively small statistical errors, with about 1000 reconstructed events in each Dalitz plot. Recent CLEO data found that $`B^\pm 𝒫^\pm \rho ^0`$ (with $`𝒫=K,\pi `$) have branching ratios of the order of $`10^5`$. Thus, assuming a total branching ratio of the decays $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ of the order of $`2\times 10^5`$ and a 60% reconstruction efficiency , this method may provide a good measurement of $`\gamma `$ after about 4 years of running of the first generation of B machines.

In summary, we have presented in this letter a method to measure the weak CKM angle $`\gamma `$ which deals with all strong and electroweak penguin amplitudes. It exploits a general procedure to extract weak angles using Dalitz plot analysis in three body B meson decays. Here, we discuss a combined study of two pairs of CP conjugated decays, $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ which allows the treatment of penguin amplitudes. Moreover, tree and penguin magnitudes and strong phases are obtained from the experimental procedure. The method brings a measurement of $`\gamma `$ free from final state interaction problems.

The procedure has two theoretical sources of uncertainty. First, it is based in SU(3) symmetry assumptions, even though only for the tree sector, not in the penguin one. Second, charm penguins can only be included in the method by considering a model to estimate $`P_c/P_t`$. According to the present knowledge, charm penguins would introduce a small systematic uncertainty. Combining both sources of error, the total theoretical error of the method presented in this letter is not larger than $`5^\mathrm{o}`$ if $`\beta `$ is larger than 50o; if $`\beta `$ has the expected value of 25o, then the error is of the order of 5o – 8o if $`\gamma `$ turns out to be in the second quadrant and of the order of 11o if it is in the first one. Thus, one expects the theoretical error of this method to be smaller than that of other procedures proposed so far to extract $`\gamma `$.

The method presented here should be experimentally feasible at BaBar and KEK. It could then provide the best knowledge of $`\gamma `$ in the next years. In any case, this method is based on a new idea and a different experimental procedure, if compared to usual methods based in two body decays. It will then bring an independent measurement of $`\gamma `$.


format: text

text:
# No-Scale Scenario with Non-Universal Gaugino Masses

## I Introduction

One of the most important phenomenological issues in supersymmetric (SUSY) Standard Models (SSMs) is to identify the mechanisms of supersymmetry breaking in the hidden sector and its mediation to the SSM sector (observable sector). Soft supersymmetry breaking masses which arise in effective theories after integrating over the hidden sector are in fact constrained from various requirements. For instance, they should lie in the range of $`10^2`$-$`10^3`$ GeV to solve the naturalness problem in the Higgs sector which is responsible for the electroweak symmetry breaking, and satisfy mass bounds given by collider experiments. They should also satisfy flavor-changing-neutral-current (FCNC) constraints as well. Furthermore, if the lightest superparticle (LSP) is stable, which is often the case, cosmological arguments require it be electrically neutral and $`SU(3)_c`$ singlet.

The structure of the soft scalar masses is characterized by the Kähler potential. In this paper, we shall focus on a special class of the Kähler structure in which the hidden sector and the observable sector are separated from each other in the Kähler potential $`K`$ as follows:

$$e^{K/3}=f_{hid}(z,z^{})+f_{obs}(\varphi ,\varphi ^{}),$$
(1)
where $`z`$ and $`\varphi `$ symbolically represent fields in the hidden and observable sector, respectively. The first example which exhibits this form of the Kähler potential is a so-called no-scale model, and thus we call it the no-scale structure. The characteristics of the Kähler potential in the no-scale form is that the soft SUSY breaking scalar masses vanish (as the vacuum energy vanishes) and gaugino masses are a dominant source of SUSY breaking mass. Of course, this mass pattern is given at the energy scale where the soft masses are given, and the renormalization group effects due to the non-vanishing gaugino masses raise the masses of the scalar superparticles at the weak scale.

The no-scale structure of the Kähler potential is obtained in many types of models. As we will see in the next section, such models include the (tree-level) Kähler potential of simple Calabi-Yau compactification of the heterotic string theories  both in the weak- and strong-coupling regimes, the splitting Ansatz of the hidden and observable sectors in the superspace density in a supergravity formalism , and the geometrical splitting of the two sectors in a brane scenario .

In this paper we revisit some phenomenological issues of the models with the no-scale boundary conditions. This class of models has closely been investigated in the literature. A particular attention was paid to the minimal case where the boundary conditions are given at the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) scale of $`2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV and the gaugino masses are assumed to be universal at this energy scale. In this case the mass spectrum of superparticles is very constrained, and the bino mass is almost degenerated with those of the right-handed sleptons. In fact it was shown that the neutralino can be the LSP only when its mass is less than about 120 GeV : otherwise the stau would be the LSP which is charged, and thus not allowed if it is stable. We will revise this result, emphasizing that the present experimental bounds already exclude the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ case, leaving only $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 8`$.

One of the main points in this paper is that slight modifications of the minimal scenario will drastically change mass spectrum of the superparticles. In particular, we shall devote ourselves to the case where the gaugino masses are non-universal at the GUT scale. We will first review several cases that the non-universality of the gaugino masses result. Then we will discuss its phenomenological implications. Most remarkably relaxing the universality condition within a factor of two or so will result in a variety of mass spectra. In particular the LSP can be not only the bino-dominant neutralino, but also a wino or higgsino-dominant neutralino, or an admixture of the gaugino and the higgsino, or even a sneutrino. Furthermore the severe upperbound on the masses of the superparticles no longer exists. Thus we expect superparticle phenomenology in this case is much richer than the minimal case.

The paper is organized as follows. In the subsequent section, we review some examples which possess the no-scale Kähler potential. In section 3, we re-examine the case where the no-scale boundary conditions are given at the GUT scale and gaugino masses are universal at the scale, and show that the superparticle mass spectrum is very restrictive and tight constraints already exclude much of the parameter space. In section 4, we argue that the very constrained mass spectrum can be relaxed by several ways, and then we focus on one of them, namely the case with non-universal gaugino masses. After recalling some mechanisms to realize the non-universality of the gaugino masses, we consider its phenomenological implications. The final section is devoted to conclusions.

## II No-Scale Boundary Conditions

In this section, we would like to review some models which have the no-scale Kähler potential. The first model is the no-scale model  with the Kähler potential

$$K=3\mathrm{ln}(T+T^{}\varphi ^{}\varphi )$$
(2)
and the superpotential

$$W=W(\varphi ),$$
(3)
where $`T`$ is a hidden sector field responsible for the SUSY breaking and $`\varphi `$ is a generic matter field. Here and in the following, we use a unit that the reduced Planck scale $`M_{pl}=2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV set to unity. With the above Kähler potential and superpotential, one can compute the scalar potential in supergravity and find that

$$V=\frac{1}{3(T+T^{}\varphi ^{}\varphi )^2}\left|\frac{W}{\varphi }\right|^2$$
(4)
and no supersymmetry breaking masses arise in the scalar sector. Furthermore the gravitino mass is not fixed, which can be arbitrarily heavy or light at this level. Thus the no-scale model is named after this property. Non-trivial dependence of gauge kinetic functions on the field $`T`$ yields non-vanishing gaugino masses in this case.

The no-scale structure appears when one considers a Calabi-Yau compactification of weakly coupled $`E_8\times E_8`$ heterotic string theory. If one focuses on the overall modulus field whose scalar component represents the overall size of the compactified space, then one finds

$$K=\mathrm{ln}(S+S^{})3\mathrm{ln}(T+T^{}\varphi ^{}\varphi ),$$
(5)
where $`S`$ is the dilaton field and $`T`$ is the overall modulus field. The superpotential in this case generally depends on the these fields $`S`$ and $`T`$. Now if $`T`$ dominates the SUSY breaking, then one finds that the soft SUSY breaking scalar mass as well as a trilinear scalar coupling ($`A`$ term) vanishes as the vacuum energy, i.e. the vacuum expectation value of the scalar potential, vanishes. Note that the $`T`$ dominant SUSY breaking occurs when the gaugino condensation triggers the SUSY breaking.

The same structure was also obtained for the heterotic M-theory  which corresponds to the strong coupling regime of the heterotic string theory, but this time the fields $`S`$ and $`T`$ have physically different meanings. In both the weak-coupling and strong-coupling cases, one has to keep in mind that quantum corrections may alter the form of the Kähler potential (5).

Severe FCNC constraints on superparticle masses may suggest that the hidden sector and the observable sector are in some way separated from each other in the Kähler potential. An assumption often taken along this line of reasoning is the separation of the two sectors in the Kähler potential itself, namely the Kähler potential is a sum of the contributions from the two sectors. This Ansatz will generate the superparticle mass spectrum of the well-known minimal supergravity model and non-zero scalar masses arise. It may be, however, more natural to consider the same separation in the superspace density in the supergravity Lagrangian , before making Weyl transformations to obtain the Einstein-Hilbert action for gravity part. This spirit indeed leads the form of the Kähler potential in Eq. (1). In this case and in the string cases, the gaugino masses become non-zero, provided that the hidden sector couples to the gauge multiplets via the gauge kinetic functions.

Recently it has been pointed out that the form (1) is naturally realized in a five-dimensional setting with two separated 3-branes . Consider the five-dimensional supergravity on $`R^4\times S^1/Z_2`$. The geometry has two four-dimensional boundaries, i.e. 3-branes. Suppose that the hidden sector is on one of the 3-branes and the observable sector is on the other. Now a dimensional reduction of the theory yields, in four dimensions, the following form of the Kähler potential

$$K=3\mathrm{ln}(T+T^{}+f_{hid}(z,z^{})+f_{obs}(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})),$$
(6)
where this time the real part of $`T`$ stands for the length of the compactified fifth dimension.

In the brane separation scenario, the two sectors are really split geometrically and thus not only the scalar masses, but also the gaugino masses vanish. Therefore one needs to seek for another mechanism to mediate the SUSY breaking occurred in the hidden sector. One way is to invoke superconformal anomaly to obtain loop-suppressed soft masses . This anomaly mediation is very appealing, albeit its minimal version has negative masses squared for sleptons. Many attempts to build realistic models have been made , and the superparticle masses obtained are in general different from those from the no-scale boundary conditions. In ref. , a new $`U(1)`$ gauge interaction is assumed to play a role of the mediator of the SUSY breaking. The resulting mass pattern is similar to that of gauge-mediated SUSY breaking. On the other hand, if the SM gauge sector lives in the bulk, then the gauginos can play a role of the SUSY-breaking messenger  and the resulting mass spectrum of the superparticles exhibits the no-scale structure with non-vanishing gaugino masses, which is given at the scale of (the inverse of) the length of the fifth-dimension.

## III Minimal Scenario

In this section, we would like to discuss phenomenological consequences of the minimal no-scale scenario which has been mainly studied in the literature. The soft SUSY breaking masses in the minimal case are parameterized by:

* vanishing scalar masses: $`m_0=0`$
* vanishing trilinear scalar couplings: $`A=0`$
* non-zero Higgs mixing masses: $`B`$
* non-zero universal gaugino masses: $`M_{1/2}`$

Note that these values are given at the GUT scale $`M_{GUT}2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. In addition to these soft masses, we assume a non-zero supersymmetric higgsino mass, $`\mu `$. These masses at the weak scale are obtained by solving renormalization group equations. Given $`M_{1/2}`$, requiring the correct electroweak symmetry breaking relates $`B`$ and $`\mu `$ with the $`Z`$ boson mass $`m_Z`$ and the ratio of the two Higgs vacuum expectation values $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as in the usual manner.

At first we roughly estimate the mass spectrum of superparticles when the Yukawa effects and the left-right mixing effects are neglected. The bino, wino and gluino masses at the weak scale are given by one parameter $`M_{1/2}`$ (in the following we set the renormalization point to be 500 GeV),

$`M_1^20.18M_{1/2}^2,M_2^20.69M_{1/2}^2,M_3^27.0M_{1/2}^2.`$ (7)
The soft SUSY breaking masses of scalars in the first-two generations are also determined by one parameter $`M_{1/2}`$.

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{u_L}^2`$ $``$ $`5.8M_{1/2}^2+0.35m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (8)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{d_L}^2`$ $``$ $`5.8M_{1/2}^20.42m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (9)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{u_R}^2`$ $``$ $`5.4M_{1/2}^2+0.15m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (10)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{d_R}^2`$ $``$ $`5.4M_{1/2}^20.077m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (11)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{}_L^2`$ $``$ $`0.51M_{1/2}^20.27m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (12)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{}_R^2`$ $``$ $`0.15M_{1/2}^20.23m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (13)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu ^2`$ $``$ $`0.51M_{1/2}^2+0.5m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (14)
The terms proportional to $`m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ are $`U(1)_Y`$ D-term contributions. From these equations, we find that bino and right-handed slepton are light. When $`M_{1/2}2.8m_Z260\text{GeV}`$, $`U(1)_Y`$ D-term contribution becomes small, and then the charged right-handed slepton becomes the LSP, and this scenario contradicts to cosmological observations.

In Fig. 1, we show the numerical result. The region above the solid line is excluded cosmologically since charged stau is the LSP. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 10`$ where left-right mixing effect is negligible, the region $`M_{1/2}260\text{GeV}`$ is excluded as we estimate above. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 10`$, since left-right mixing effect makes stau mass lighter , the constraint becomes stronger. In Fig. 1, we also show the value of the right-handed smuon mass. From the cosmological constraint, we find that the right-handed smuon must be lighter than about 120 GeV.

On the other hand, the LEP experiments at $`\sqrt{s}=202\text{GeV}`$ provide rather strong lower bound on slepton masses . For smuon, except near the threshold, the cross section for smuon pair production $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R^+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R^{})`$ must be smaller than 0.05 pb to survive the smuon searches at LEP. Here we impose that $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R^+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R^{})0.05\text{pb}`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R}98\text{GeV}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi _1^0}}0.98m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R}4.1\text{GeV}`$. This constraint excludes the left side of the dashed line in the Fig. 1. Combining these two constraints, we conclude that the no-scale scenario with the universal gaugino masses is allowed only for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 8`$ and $`210\text{GeV}M_{1/2}270\text{GeV}`$.

## IV Case of Non-Universal Gaugino Masses

In this section, we consider modifications of the minimal boundary conditions discussed in the previous section, and argue that slight modifications will drastically change phenomenological consequences.

The reason of the very constrained superparticle mass spectrum in the minimal case is the degeneracy of the bino mass and those of the right-handed sleptons. The degeneracy is resolved if one considers the renormalization group effects above the GUT scale . The point is that the right-handed slepton multiplets belong to 10-plets in the minimal choice of the matter representations in the $`SU(5)`$ GUT, and the large group factor in the gauge loop contributions yields large positive corrections to the slepton masses. We should note, however, that in some realistic models to attempt to explain the masses of quarks, leptons and neutrinos, matter multiplets in different generations are often taken to be in different representations of the GUT groups , and then the renormalization group effects would violate the mass degeneracy among the different generations, which might cause unacceptably large FCNCs.

Secondly the stau can be the lightest superparticle in the SSM sector if it is not stable. This is indeed the case when R-parity is violated or there exists another superparticle such as a gravitino out of the SSM sector which is lighter than the stau .

Another possibility is to relax the universality of the gaugino masses. In the rest of this section, we will discuss this case in detail. In the next subsection, we shall review various possibilities to realize non-universal gaugino masses. In particular we will emphasize that the non-universality of the gaugino masses does not conflict with the universality of the gauge couplings. Then we will look into phenomenological implications of the non-universality.

### A Examples of Non-Universal Gaugino Masses

Once the gaugino masses are given universal at some high energy scale where the gauge groups are unified, it is shown that the gaugino mass relation $`M_1:M_2:M_31:2:6`$ holds at low energy, irrespective of the breaking patterns of the GUT group . Here we review some mechanisms in which the gaugino masses are non-universal from the beginning.

In string models with simple Calabi-Yau compactification, the gauge kinetic functions for the Standard Model gauge multiplets can be written as

$$f_i=S+ϵ_iT$$
(15)
where $`i=1`$, 2, 3 represent the three Standard Model gauge groups and $`ϵ_i`$ are some coefficients of one-loop order determined by the details of the compactification. If $`ϵ_i`$ depends on a gauge group and the modulus field $`T`$ is dominantly responsible for the SUSY breaking, we will have the non-universal gaugino masses:

$$M_1:M_2:M_3=ϵ_1:ϵ_2:ϵ_3.$$
(16)
Here we would like to emphasize that large threshold corrections are necessary for the string unification scenario in the weak coupling regime where the string scale is more than one order of magnitude larger than the naive GUT scale, and thus appearance of the non-universal $`ϵ_i`$ terms seems to be requisite. Note again that the Kähler potential may receive quantum corrections at the same order and the no-scale structure may be distorted.

The non-universality of the gaugino masses can be achieved in the conventional GUT approaches. Suppose that the gauge kinetic functions are written in the following form :

$$f=c+\mathrm{\Sigma }Z$$
(17)
where $`c`$ is a universal constant, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a field which breaks the GUT group to the SM group, and $`Z`$ is assumed to break the SUSY. The first term respects the GUT symmetry and thus universal for all SM gauge groups, while the second term is a symmetry breaking part which depends on each SM group. As for the gauge couplings, the first term gives a dominant contribution and hence the gauge couplings are unified up to small non-universal effects from the second term. On the other hand, the gaugino masses are assumed to come from the second term in Eq. (17). They are proportional to the vacuum expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and thus non-universal. The form of Eq. (17) can also be obtained through GUT threshold corrections to the gauge kinetic functions .

Non-universal gaugino masses can also be realized in scenarios of product GUTs  where the gauge group has the structure of $`G_{GUT}\times G_H`$ and the Standard Model gauge groups are obtained as diagonal subgroups of the two product groups. The idea of the product GUTs provides an elegant solution to the triplet-doublet splitting problem in the Higgs sector based on the missing doublet mechanism. The gauge coupling unification achieves if the gauge couplings of the $`G_H`$ group are sufficiently large, while contributions to the gaugino masses from the $`G_H`$ sector are generally sizable and destroy their universality. .

The flipped $`SU(5)`$ is another example where the non-universality of the gaugino masses naturally arises . The gauge group is $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ and thus even if the $`SU(5)`$ part gives a universal contribution the gaugino mass from $`U(1)`$ in general gives a different mass, violating the universality of the $`U(1)_Y`$ gaugino mass with the rest two.

In summary, the non-universality of the gaugino masses is not a peculiar phenomenon even in the light of the gauge coupling unification. Motivated by this observation, we will discuss its phenomenological consequences.

### B Phenomenological Implications

In this subsection we discuss some phenomenological implications of non-universal gaugino masses. At the cutoff scale, all scalar masses are vanishing as in the minimal case, while the bino, winos and gluinos possess nonzero masses $`M_{1,0}`$, $`M_{2,0}`$, and $`M_{3,0}`$ , respectively, and now they are no longer degenerate in general. The soft SUSY breaking mass parameters at the weak scale are obtained by solving the RGEs. In this paper we use the one-loop level RGEs. With the soft SUSY breaking masses, we evaluate the physical masses using the tree-level potential. We also obtain the value of $`\mu `$ from the electroweak symmetry breaking condition with tree-level Higgs potential.

Before showing numerical results, we discuss the mass spectrum of superparticles when the Yukawa effects to the RG evolutions and left-right mixings are neglected. Relations of the gaugino masses at the GUT scale $`M_{GUT}`$ and the electroweak scale $`M_{EW}`$ are

$$M_1^20.18M_{1,0}^2,M_2^20.69M_{2,0}^2,M_3^27.0M_{3,0}^2.$$
(18)
Neglecting effects of Yukawa interaction, the masses squared of sfermions at the weak scale are evaluated to be

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{u_L}^2`$ $``$ $`5.4M_{3,0}^2+0.47M_{2,0}^2+4.2\times 10^3M_{1,0}^2+0.35m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (19)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{d_L}^2`$ $``$ $`5.4M_{3,0}^2+0.47M_{2,0}^2+4.2\times 10^3M_{1,0}^20.42m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (20)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{u_R}^2`$ $``$ $`5.4M_{3,0}^2+0.066M_{1,0}^2+0.15m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (21)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{d_R}^2`$ $``$ $`5.4M_{3,0}^2+0.017M_{1,0}^20.077m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (22)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{}_L^2`$ $``$ $`0.47M_{2,0}^2+0.037M_{1,0}^20.27m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (23)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{}_R^2`$ $``$ $`0.15M_{1,0}^20.23m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (24)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu ^2`$ $``$ $`0.47M_{2,0}^2+0.037M_{1,0}^2+0.5m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta .`$ (25)
From the above equations, we find that if $`M_{1,0}2.0M_{2,0}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{}_R^2`$ is heavier than $`M_1^2`$, $`M_2^2`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{}_L^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\nu ^2`$. Notice that the mass of the charged left-handed slepton is heavier than the mass of the neutral sneutrino because $`\mathrm{cos}2\beta 0`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$ . On the other hand, for $`M_{1,0}/M_{2,0}2.5`$, the wino mass tends to be lighter than the sneutrino mass. Hence we expect that sneutrino can be LSP when $`2M_{1,0}/M_{2,0}2.5`$, and wino-like neutralino can be LSP when $`M_{1,0}/M_{2,0}2.5`$.

Next, we consider how $`\mu `$ affects the mass spectrum of the superparticles. The value $`\mu `$ is determined by minimizing the Higgs potential. At the tree-level, $`\mu `$ is calculated in terms of the soft SUSY breaking masses of the Higgses and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$,

$$\mu ^2=\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_d}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_d}^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 1}\frac{1}{2}m_Z^2.$$
(26)
In order to obtain the value of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_d}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_u}^2`$, we have to include the Yukawa interaction. For the moment we consider the low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region, i.e., we take only the top Yukawa coupling into account and neglect the bottom and tau Yukawa couplings for simplicity. In this case $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_d}^2=\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{}_L^2`$ and we can obtain an analytic solution for the RGE of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_u}^2`$. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ , $`\mu `$ is approximately

$`\mu ^2`$ $`=`$ $`2.1M_{3,0}^20.22M_{2,0}^20.0064M_{1,0}^2+0.0063M_{1,0}M_{2,0}`$ (28)
$`+0.19M_{2,0}M_{3,0}+0.029M_{3,0}M_{1,0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_Z^2.`$
From this equation, we find that the size of $`\mu `$ is strongly correlated with the size of the gluino mass $`M_{3,0}`$ and $`|\mu |`$ becomes large as $`M_{3,0}`$ increases. Hence when $`M_{3,0}`$ is large enough, the left-right mixing in the slepton masses is important, which makes one of the staus, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$, lighter than sneutrino. On the other hand if $`M_{3,0}`$ is small enough, $`|\mu |`$ becomes smaller than the mass of bino, wino, slepton and sneutrinos, and then a higgsino-like neutralino can be the LSP. Actually, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, from eq. (28) we find that $`|\mu |`$ is smaller than $`M_2`$ if $`M_{3,0}/M_{2,0}0.5`$ is satisfied.

In the non-universal case, not only the mass spectrum but also the mixing properties of the neutralinos are very different from those in the minimal case. To see this we classify the lightest neutralino $`\chi _1^0`$ into five cases as follows. $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is a linear combination of bino, wino and higgsinos and is written as

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0=(O_N)_{1B}\stackrel{~}{B}+(O_N)_{1W}\stackrel{~}{W}+(O_N)_{1H_d}\stackrel{~}{H_d}+(O_N)_{1H_u}\stackrel{~}{H_u},$$
(29)
where $`O_N`$ is orthogonal matrix diagonalizing the neutralino mass matrix. When $`|(O_N)_{1B}|^2>0.8`$, $`|(O_N)_{1W}|^2>0.8`$ or $`|(O_N)_{1H_d}|^2+|(O_N)_{1H_u}|^2>0.8`$, we call these parameter region ’bino region’, ’wino region’ or ’higgsino region’, respectively. When $`|(O_N)_{1B}|^2<0.8`$ and $`|(O_N)_{1W}|^2<0.8`$ and $`|(O_N)_{1B}|^2+|(O_N)_{1W}|^2>0.8`$ , we call the region ’bino-wino mixed region’. The other parameter region is called ’mixed region’.

In Fig. 2 we show the composition of the LSP when we relax the gaugino mass universality. Here we take $`M_{2,0}=200\text{GeV}`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and $`\text{sgn}(\mu )=+1`$. Recall that for the universal gaugino masses at the GUT scale, the LSP is the lighter stau and this parameter set is excluded. Once we relax the universality, however, we see that the situation drastically changes, and the composition of the LSP behaves as we have discussed with the approximate expressions eq.(18) - eq.(25). The lightest neutralino can be the LSP in a large parameter region , and furthermore unlike the universal case, it can be wino-like, higgsino-like or admixture of them as well as bino-like. When $`M_{1,0}/M_{2,0}2.5`$ and $`M_{3,0}/M_{2,0}1`$ the wino is the LSP. And as the ratio $`M_{3,0}/M_{2,0}`$ decreases, $`|\mu |`$ becomes comparable to $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ and the lightest neutralino is the admixture of bino, wino and higgsinos. Further $`M_{3,0}/M_{2,0}`$ becomes smaller than about 0.5, the dominant component of the lightest neutralino is higgsino. Also we find in the region $`2M_{1,0}/M_{2,0}2.5`$, the tau sneutrino is indeed the LSP. And we find that when $`M_{3,0}/M_{2,0}`$ is larger than 2, i.e., $`|\mu |`$ is large and so is the left-handed and right-handed stau mixing, sneutrino can not be the LSP, and stau is LSP even when $`M_{1,0}/M_{2,0}`$ is bigger than 2.5 – 3.

In the non-universal case sfermions, as well as neutralinos and charginos, show variety of mass spectrum. From eq. (23) and eq. (24), we find that when $`M_{1,0}/M_{2,0}2`$ left-handed sfermions are smaller than right-handed sfermions in contrast to the universal case. For stau, the mixing angle of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R`$ also depends on this ratio. In Fig. 3 we show the behavior of this mixing angle $`\theta _\tau `$ in the $`M_{1,0}/M_{2,0}M_{3,0}/M_{2,0}`$ plane, where $`\theta _\tau `$ is defined such that the lighter stau $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ is written as $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1=\mathrm{cos}\theta _\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }_L+\mathrm{sin}\theta _\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }_R`$. Around $`M_{1,0}/M_{2,0}2`$, the mass of the right-handed stau is as heavy as that of the left-handed stau, and they mix maximally ($`\theta _\tau =4050`$) as expected. Also masses of squarks strongly depend on $`M_3`$ , and thus mass relations between squarks and sleptons drastically change. As we shall see later, some of the squarks can be lighter than the sleptons.

In Fig. 4 we show the same graph as Fig. 2 except for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$. In this case the Yukawa interaction and the left-right mixing make the stau mass lighter. In fact, although wino-like, higgsino-like and mixed neutralino is LSP in large parameter region, the sneutrino can not be the LSP. To see the relation among the stau mass, the tau sneutrino mass and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, we plot in Fig. 5 the composition of the LSP in the $`M_{3,0}/M_{2,0}\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ plane, fixing $`M_{3,0}/M_{2,0}=2.5`$. This figure shows that the tau sneutrino can be the LSP when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 15`$ where the left-right mixing is not so sizable. We have checked that these features are insensitive to the signs of $`\mu `$ and gaugino masses.

We shall next investigate the mass spectrum of superparticles in detail, by choosing some representative parameter sets, and discuss phenomenology for each parameter set. The points we choose are listed in Table I. In table II we show contamination of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ for each point. At the points A and E, the LSP is the wino-like neutralino. At the points B, C and E the LSP is the higgsino-like neutralino. And at the point D the tau sneutrino is the LSP. In table III we list the mass spectrum of superparticles.

The wino-like neutralino is the LSP when $`M_{1,0}/M_{2,0}2`$ and $`M_{3,0}/M_{2,0}1`$ . In the wino-like neutralino LSP case, the lighter chargino and the lightest neutralino are highly degenerate generally. This character and the resulting phenomenology has been studied in . On top of this our scenario also predicts that the right-handed sfermions are heavier than the left-handed ones because of the inequality $`M_{1,0}/M_{2,0}2`$ , and colored superparticles are heavier than other superparticles because of the inequality $`M_{3,0}/M_{2,0}1`$ (see the list for the points A and E in the table III) . The former may be an interesting feature. Anomaly-mediated SUSY breaking (AMSB) scenario also predicts the wino-like LSP. However in the minimal AMSB model where universal mass is added to all scalars to avoid negative slepton masses squared, the left-handed and right-handed sleptons in the first two generations tend to be degenerate . Thus we can distinguish two scenarios with the wino LSP, the no-scale scenario with non-universal gaugino masses and the minimal AMSB, by measuring these slepton masses.

The higgsino-like neutralino is the LSP when $`M_{3,0}/M_{2,0}0.5`$ regardless of $`M_{1,0}/M_{2,0}`$ . In the higgsino-like neutralino LSP case, the mass deference between higgsino-like neutralino LSP and chargino NLSP is generally small. The resulting phenomenology have been studied in . Furthermore in our case, the sleptons are as heavy as the squarks due to the inequality $`M_{3,0}/M_{2,0}0.5`$. Especially the lighter stop and sbottom can be lighter than some of the sleptons. Actually, at the points B, C, and F, the lighter stop is comparable to the slepton masses, and all superparticle masses are below 400 - 450 GeV.

In the non-universal scenario, the tau sneutrino can also be the LSP when $`2M_{1,0}/M_{2,0}2.5`$, $`1M_{3,0}/M_{2,0}5`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 15`$. From the first inequality, we find that the mass difference between left-handed and right-handed squarks in the first two generations is small, and the left-right mixing angle of the stau is big as shown in Fig. 3.

## V Conclusions

In this paper, we have revisited the no-scale scenario where the vanishing SUSY-breaking scalar masses and trilinear scalar couplings are given at the GUT scale. When the gaugino masses are given universal, the renormalization group analysis implies that the bino mass and the right-handed slepton masses are close to each other. This degeneracy leads an upperbound of the LSP mass around 120 GeV: above it the LSP would be the charged stau, which must be excluded cosmologically. Furthermore, the negative results of the slepton searches at LEP200 already excluded a large portion of the parameter space including a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region, leaving $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 8`$.

We next considered various ways out to avoid the aforementioned severe constraints. Among them, we concentrated on the case of the non-universal gaugino masses. In fact the non-universality of the gaugino masses is by no means a peculiar phenomenon, rather it is realized in various scenarios, including some approaches to grand unification. We investigated some phenomenological implications of the no-scale model with the non-universal gaugino masses. We found that there is no longer severe constraint on the superparticle masses and the mass spectrum of the superparticle has much richer structure. In particular, the LSP can be the wino-like neutralino, the higgsino-like neutralino, or even the sneutrino. We also found that unlike the conventional universal gaugino mass case, the left-handed slepton masses can be lighter than the right-handed slepton masses. We expect that resulting collider signatures with these features will be quite different from the usual scenario with the universal gaugino masses. Further studies along this direction should be encouraged.

## acknowledgment

We would like to thank Y. Nomura, T. Moroi and Y. Yamada for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan, on Priority Area 707 ”Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary Particles”, and by the Grants-in-Aid No.11640246 and No.12047201.


text:
# Resolving the 10-40 keV Cosmic X-ray Background with Constellation-X

## 1.  The Constellation X–ray mission

The Constellation X–ray mission is a high throughput X-ray facility emphasizing observations at high spectral resolution (E/$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=300–3000) while covering a broad energy bandpass (0.25–40 keV). Constellation-X will provide a factor of nearly 100 increase in sensitivity over current high resolution X-ray spectroscopy missions. The large collecting area is achieved with a design utilizing several mirror modules, each with its own detector system. Each (or a few) science unit will fly on a separate spacecraft.

Two telescopes will be on–board: the low–energy Spectroscopy X-ray telescope (SXT), operating simultaneously with a 2 eV resolution calorimeter and a set of reflection gratings; a high–energy system (HXT), that will be the first focusing telescope system operating at several tens of keV, where the energy density of the XRB peaks (Figure 1).

The Baseline Mission Characteristics are:

* Effective Area: 15000 (6000, 1500) cm2 at 1 (6.4, 40) keV
* Angular resolution: 15” HPD from 0.25 to 10 keV; 1’ HPD at 40 keV
* Band Pass: 0.25 to 40 keV

More information can be found at: http://constellation.gsfc.nasa.gov/

## 2.  The XRB synthesis model

To evaluate the fraction of hard XRB resolved by the HXT onboard Constellation-X, we first developed a synthesis model based on the standard assumption that the XRB is mostly made by a combination of type 1 and 2 AGN (Setti & Woltjer 1989; Comastri et al., 1995, and references therein). Details on the model can be found in Pompilio, La Franca & Matt (1999 and this volume). Here we summarize the main features of the model.

1. AGN spectra

1. type 1 (AGN1) spectrum:

    * power law ($`\alpha =0.9`$) + exponential cut-off ($`E_c=400`$ keV);
        * Compton reflection component (accretion disk, $`\theta _{obs}60^{}`$);
    2. type 2 (AGN2) spectrum (Matt, Pompilio & La Franca, 1999):

    * primary AGN1 spectrum obscured by cold matter:

        $`10^{21}N_H10^{25}cm^2`$, $`\frac{dN(logN_H)}{d(logN_H)}logN_H`$;
        * Compton scattering within the absorbing matter fully included.
2. Cosmological evolution

1. PLE ($`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(z=0)=1.45\times 10^6Mpc^3(10^{44}ergs^1)^1`$);
    2. power law evolution for the break-luminosity:

    $`L^{}(z)(1+z)^k`$ up to $`z_{max}=1.73`$, with

    $`L^{}(z=0)=3.9\times 10^{43}ergs^1`$ and $`k=2.9`$ (model H of Boyle et al., 1994);
    3. the redshift integration is performed up to $`z_d=4.5`$.

## 3.  Predictions

We are now able to predict the fraction of the Cosmic XRB which can be resolved by Constellation–X in the 10–40 keV energy range. Our estimate is based on the baseline spatial resolution, i.e. 1’ HPD, which is a rather conservative value. Any improvement in this resolution will of course increase the fraction of XRB resolved.

The predictions are:

1. Number densities of type 1 and type 2 AGN detected in the 10-40 keV band down to a flux limit of $`10^{14}ergcm^2s^1`$ (reachable with an exposure time of the order of a few thousand seconds, Harrison et al. 1999):

* AGN1 $`53.3deg^2`$;
    * AGN2 $`123.4deg^2`$;

$``$ $``$ 70% are absorbed sources. (Note that these numbers implied a density of about a source per 20 beams, which should ensure a tolerable level of confusion. If the final spatial resolution will be better than 1’, as it appears likely, confusion problems will be of course less severe).
2. Integrated XRB spectrum in the 10-40 keV band:

* measured value $`I(1040keV)9.4\times 10^8ergcm^2s^1sr^1`$ (HEAO-1 A2 data, Marshall et al. 1980);
    * fraction of XRB down to a flux of $`10^{14}ergcm^2s^1`$

    $`I_{ConstX}(1040keV)4.0\times 10^8ergcm^2s^1sr^1`$;
$``$ $``$ 40% of the 10–40 keV XRB will be resolved by Constellation-X.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is part of the activities of the Constellation–X Facility Science Team. The authors acknowledge financial support from the Italian Space Agency.

## REFERENCES

Boyle B.J., Shanks T., Georgantopoulos I., Stewart G.C., Griffiths R.E., 1994, MNRAS, 271, 639

Comastri A., Setti G., Zamorani G., Hasinger G., 1995, A&A, 196, 1

Gruber D.E., 1992, in “The X–ray Background”, X. Barcons and A.C Fabian eds., Cambridge University Press, p.45

Harrison F., et al., 1999, SPIE Proc., 3765, 104

Marshall F.E., et al., 1980, ApJ, 235, 4

Matt G., Pompilio F., La Franca F., 1999, New Astron., 4, 191

Pompilio F., La Franca F., Matt G., 1999, A&A, in press (astro–ph/9909390)

Setti G., Woltjer L., 1989, A&A, 224, 21


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that during inflation the inflaton, being a light scalar field, couples gravitationally and grows on superhorizon scales. Likewise, (scalar) cosmological perturbations grow resulting in a scale-invariant spectrum on superhorizon scales, providing one of the most important predictions of inflation: seeds for formation of large-scale structures in the Universe . The spectrum of gravitational waves generated during inflation has also been studied in detail  and is regarded as perhaps the only signature of inflation that may be “observed” directly. It is hence surprising that the evolution of vector fields has not been considered with sufficient care, especially in light of the exciting possibility that primordial gauge fields from inflation could produce the magnetic fields observed today in galaxies  and even affect the cosmic microwave background radiation .

It is usually assumed that gauge fields do not grow during inflation. The reason is very simple: gauge fields do not couple gravitationally to a conformally flat space-time. The metric of conformally flat space-times can in general be written as $`g_{\mu \nu }=a^2(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}[1,1,1,1]`$ is the Minkowski metric. The space-times of standard cosmology are all conformally flat. Indeed, in inflationary de Sitter space-time the scale factor reads $`a(\tau )=1/(H_\mathrm{I}\tau )`$, where $`H_\mathrm{I}`$ is the Hubble parameter in inflation; in the radiation era $`a\tau `$, while in the matter era $`a\tau ^2`$. This implies that, in order to get any amplification of gauge fields during inflation, conformal invariance must be broken.

Various proposals have been put forward in which conformal invariance of gauge fields is broken. A particularly nice one is due to Dolgov , who showed that the conformal anomaly of the gauge-field stress-energy tensor, expressed by the triangle diagram, leads to particle production for gauge fields even in a conformally flat space-time. Turner and Widrow  consider several ways of breaking conformal invariance: (a) gravitational coupling of the photon, (b) anomalous coupling of the photon to the axion, and (c) coupling of the photon to a charged, massless scalar field. In the former two cases, conformal anomaly is broken by a non-standard coupling of the photon field. The case (c) has recently been explored by Calzetta et al. and by Kandus et al. . These authors argue that, as a consequence of scalar charge separation during inflation, charged domains form which proceed to source electric currents in the radiation era, leading to magnetic-field production. Their claim, that the magnetic field thus created has sufficient strength to seed the galactic dynamo mechanism , has recently been contested by Giovannini and Shaposhnikov .

In this Letter we show that there is a natural way of breaking conformal invariance of gauge fields which has not been considered in the literature. Namely, the backreaction of a charged scalar field gives the gauge field an effective mass, which breaks conformal invariance.

## 2 Scalar electrodynamics

We begin by considering scalar electrodynamics, which nicely illustrates our mechanism of gauge-field amplification from inflation. The idea can be easily extended to include non-Abelian gauge fields and multi-component scalar fields. The Lagrangian is

$$_{\varphi \mathrm{ED}}=\frac{1}{4}g^{\mu \eta }g^{\nu \rho }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\eta \rho }+g^{\mu \nu }(D_\mu \varphi )^{}D_\nu \varphi m_\varphi ^2\varphi ^{}\varphi \lambda _\varphi (\varphi ^{}\varphi )^2,$$
(1)
where $`D_\mu =_\mu ieA_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative, $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ is the gauge field strength, $`g^{\mu \nu }=a^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is a conformally flat metric, and $`m_\varphi `$ and $`\lambda _\varphi `$ are the mass and self-coupling of the scalar field $`\varphi `$, respectively. The experimental constraint on the $`\varphi `$ mass, $`m_\varphi M_{\mathrm{EW}}100`$ GeV, is easily satisfied. The obvious candidates for $`\varphi `$ are supersymmetric partners of the standard-model leptons and quarks. In addition, we require that $`m_\varphi H_\mathrm{I}`$, so that the charged scalar field may grow during inflation.

The relevant equation of motion for the photon field is obtained from Eq. (1) as the Lagrange equation $`_\nu (\delta _{_\nu A_\mu }(\sqrt{D_g}_{\varphi \mathrm{ED}}))\delta _{A_\mu }(\sqrt{D_g}_{\varphi \mathrm{ED}})=0`$, where $`D_g=\mathrm{det}[g_{\mu \nu }]=a^8`$. After some algebra one finds that the mode equation for the transverse component of the photon field in the Hartree approximation and in unitary gauge can be recast as

$$\left(_\tau ^2+\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+e^2a^2\rho ^2\right)𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}=0,$$
(2)
where $`\rho ^2=2\varphi ^{}\varphi `$, $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the comoving momentum, $`e`$ electric charge ($`e^2/4\pi \alpha 1/137`$), and $`\tau `$ the conformal time, which is related to the “physical” time $`t`$ as $`dt=a(\tau )d\tau `$. The average $``$ should be computed in the Hartree approximation by subtracting the vacuum contribution, so that in the vacuum $`\rho ^20`$ and Eq. (2) reduces to that of a harmonic oscillator. The solutions are then travelling harmonic waves,

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{vac}}^{(\pm )}=\left(\frac{2\pi V}{k}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{ik\tau },$$
(3)
where $`k=|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ and we used the (Wronskian) normalisation of the mode functions, $`𝐖[𝒜_{\mathrm{vac}}^{(+)},𝒜_{\mathrm{vac}}^{()}]`$ $`=4\pi iV`$, appropriate for periodic boundary conditions in a box of volume $`V`$. The modulus of the mode functions in Eq. (3) does not depend on time, which is a consequence of conformal invariance being restored when $`\rho ^2\rho ^2_{\mathrm{vac}}=0`$.

For simplicity we shall consider only homogeneous space-times such that the scale factor $`a`$ in Eq. (2) may be taken to be

$$a=\{\begin{array}{ccc}1/(H_\mathrm{I}\tau )\hfill & \text{for}\tau H_\mathrm{I}^1\hfill & \text{(inflation),}\hfill \\ H_\mathrm{I}\tau \hfill & \text{for}\tau H_\mathrm{I}^1\hfill & \text{(radiation)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
This corresponds to the following smooth matching at the inflation-radiation transition: $`a(H_\mathrm{I}^1)=a(H_\mathrm{I}^1)`$ and $`da(H_\mathrm{I}^1)/d\tau =da(H_\mathrm{I}^1)/d\tau `$.

### 2.1 Breakdown of conformal invariance

The backreaction term in Eq. (2) is generated during inflation because of the gravitational coupling of the scalar field. In the Hartree approximation, the backreaction is described by elastic scattering processes only, which should be a good approximation in inflation. We also assume that damping is negligible in inflation, since most of the amplification is on superhorizon scales beyond the reach of dissipative processes.

The Hartree term $`\rho ^2`$ for a light, charged scalar field can be estimated as follows. From the scalar equation of motion, one infers that during inflation the scalar field grows until its effective mass essentially reaches the Hubble parameter. More precisely, we have $`m_\varphi ^2+3\lambda _\varphi \rho ^22H_\mathrm{I}^2`$, so that $`e^2\rho ^2/H_\mathrm{I}^22e^2/(3\lambda _\varphi )1/(16\lambda _\varphi )`$. When the limit is saturated, the growth of $`\varphi `$ modes becomes exponentially suppressed. We assume that this occurs well before the end of inflation. The solutions of Eq. (2) may then be conveniently written in terms of Hankel functions as follows:

$$𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(i)}=\pi \left(\tau V\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}H_\nu ^{(i)}(k\tau ),i=1,2,\nu ^2=\frac{1}{4}\frac{e^2\rho ^2}{H_\mathrm{I}^2}(\mathrm{inflation}).$$
(5)
For the mode-function normalisation we impose the Wronskian condition $`𝐖[𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(1)},𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(2)}]=4\pi iV`$ so that, as $`\tau \mathrm{}`$, the mode functions reduce to the vacuum mode functions discussed above: $`𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(1,2)}𝒜_{\mathrm{vac}}^{(\pm )}`$. At later stages of inflation, however, the mode functions get “squeezed” on superhorizon scales as

$$𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(j)}\stackrel{k|\tau |1}{}i(1)^j\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )\left(\frac{2V}{k}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{k\tau }{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}\nu },j=1,2.$$
(6)
Since $`\mathrm{Re}[\nu ]<1/2`$, the amplitudes $`𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(j)}`$ actually decrease, while the momenta $`_\tau 𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(j)}`$ grow (see Fig. 1). This evolution preserves the uncertainty relation for the photon field operators, which can be equivalently expressed by the (conserved) Wronskian.

After inflation the squeezed photon state evolves according to complicated physics associated with the processes of preheating and thermalisation of the Universe. The details of the evolution are model dependent and deserve further study , especially since these processes have not been fully considered in the context of gauge fields (see, however, Ref. ). In the following section we shall make a crude approximation and assume that the scalar field decays instantaneously at the end of inflation, leading to sudden restoration of conformal symmetry. The effects of preheating and thermalisation are considered in section 4, where we show that, under certain conditions, preheating results in additional amplification of the superhorizon modes.

## 3 Photon field amplification from inflation

Here we assume that soon after inflation the $`\varphi `$ field decays nonadiabatically such that $`\rho ^2`$ quickly approaches the vacuum value $`\rho ^2_{\mathrm{vac}}=0`$, rendering Eq. (2) conformally invariant. The solutions in the radiation era are then linear combinations of the travelling waves $`𝒜_{\mathrm{vac}}^{(\pm )}`$ of Eq. (3). Particle production occurs since the effective mass parameter undergoes a nonadiabatic change at the inflation-radiation transition. This change can be nonadiabatic even when the squared mass $`e^2\rho ^2`$ changes adiabatically. Indeed, at the beginning of radiation era the scale factor evolves nonadiabatically, i.e. $`|(_\tau a^2)/a^2|^2=4H_\mathrm{I}^2e^2\rho ^2`$, so that the results concerning the photon field amplification in the simple case under consideration are quite generic.

Since the vacuum of inflation does not correspond to the late-time vacuum of the radiation era, the field content of Eq. (5) may be interpreted from the point of view of a late-time observer by a smooth matching of the mode functions $`𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(i)}`$ at the end of inflation to a linear combination of travelling waves in the radiation era,

$`𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(1)}(H_\mathrm{I}^1)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _\stackrel{}{k}𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}(H_\mathrm{I}^1)+\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{()}(H_\mathrm{I}^1)`$
$`_\tau 𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(1)}(H_\mathrm{I}^1)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _\stackrel{}{k}_\tau 𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}(H_\mathrm{I}^1)+\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}_\tau 𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{()}(H_\mathrm{I}^1),`$ (7)
and similarly for $`𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(2)}=𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(1)}`$. Here $`\alpha _\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`\beta _\stackrel{}{k}`$ are the Bogoliubov coefficients that relate the creation and annihilation operators in the radiation era to those of (de Sitter) inflation.111The convention used here is consistent with the Bogoliubov coefficients being defined through the following relations: $`a_\stackrel{}{k}=\alpha _\stackrel{}{k}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}+\beta _\stackrel{}{k}\overline{b}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$, $`b_\stackrel{}{k}=\alpha _\stackrel{}{k}\overline{b}_\stackrel{}{k}+\beta _\stackrel{}{k}\overline{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$, where barred operators are for inflation and unbarred for radiation era. With $`𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(\pm )}=𝒜_{\mathrm{vac}}^{(\pm )}`$ the matching problem is easily solved. On superhorizon scales we have

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _\stackrel{}{k}\\ \beta _\stackrel{}{k}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ik/H_\mathrm{I}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}{4\sqrt{\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{2H_\mathrm{I}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}\nu }+𝒪(\left(k/2H_\mathrm{I}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}+\nu }),`$ (10)
so that at late time in radiation the linearly independent mode functions $`𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`𝒜_{\stackrel{}{k}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, where $`𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}\alpha _\stackrel{}{k}𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}+\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{()}`$ , are proportional to $`k^{1\nu }`$. When $`\nu 1/2`$ the superhorizon modes $`𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}k^{3/2}`$ make up an almost scale-invariant spectrum, similar to that of a massless scalar field. The amplification by a factor $`\beta _\stackrel{}{k}(k/H_\mathrm{I})^{1/2\nu }`$ compared to the Minkowski vacuum spectrum (see Fig. 1) is a consequence of the large value of the momentum $`_\tau 𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}^{(j)}`$ at the end of inflation, as can be inferred from Eq. (6). This is the maximum amplification that can be attained at the inflation-radiation transition, since sudden transition is the one with maximal nonadiabaticity. However, it is not hard to show that a softer matching, for example onto $`\rho ^2H^2=(H_\mathrm{I}\tau ^2)^2`$, leads to almost as strong an amplification on superhorizon scales (for $`\nu 1/2`$), namely $`𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}k^{\frac{1}{2}2\nu }`$. An obvious candidate for such a scenario is “gravitational” preheating . We emphasise that, in a transition between asymptotic ”in” and ”out” states with the property $`\rho ^2_{\mathrm{in}}=\rho ^2_{\mathrm{out}}=0`$, the expectation value $`\rho ^2`$ will typically be non-zero during any period when the quantum operator $`\rho ^2`$ evolves non-adiabatically, leading to amplification of gauge fields.

## 4 Photon field amplification in preheating

Here we present a simplified model of preheating in which the spectrum of photons from inflation is further amplified on superhorizon scales, so long as inelastic scattering and dissipation can be neglected. We assume that, at late stages when thermalisation takes place, the $`\varphi `$ field decays nonadiabatically, imprinting the photon-field spectrum onto the plasma as described in section 3. How realistic this assumption is will be the subject of a separate study .

Resonant amplification of the photon field may result when the scalar field $`\varphi `$ couples to the inflaton and grows resonantly such that the photon mass term $`e^2\phi ^2`$ ($`\phi ^2=2a^2\varphi ^{}\varphi `$) acquires an oscillatory component, leading to (secondary) resonant amplification of the photon field $`A`$. This resonant amplification resembles stochastic resonance  in which all superhorizon modes are equally amplified. We shall now make a crude estimate of the amplification factor.

We assume massless chaotic inflation with a quartic interaction term $`\lambda _ss^4/4`$, where $`\lambda _s10^{13}`$ as specified by the COBE satellite microwave background radiation measurements. Furthermore, the inflaton $`s`$ couples to $`\varphi `$ with a term $`hs^2\varphi ^{}\varphi `$ such that $`hs^22H^2(s)`$ during inflation, setting an upper limit on $`h`$. It is now easy to show that the oscillating inflaton $`s`$ decays into $`\varphi `$ through a narrow resonance with the quality factor $`q_\varphi hs_0^2/4\omega _\mathrm{I}^21/200`$, where $`s_00.3M_\mathrm{P}`$ is the inflaton amplitude at the end of inflation and $`\omega _\mathrm{I}=c_n\sqrt{\lambda _s}s_0`$ ($`c_n0.847`$) is the inflaton frequency. Since at very early stages the photon-field quality factor $`q_A=e^2\phi ^2_{\mathrm{osc}}/4\omega _\mathrm{I}^2q_\varphi `$, where $`\phi ^2_{\mathrm{osc}}`$ is the amplitude of the oscillatory component of $`\phi ^2`$, energy density $`\rho `$ is much more efficiently transferred from $`s`$ to $`\varphi `$ than it is from $`\varphi `$ to $`A`$. As time passes, $`\phi ^2_{\mathrm{osc}}`$ grows, leading to more efficient resonant production of the photon field $`A`$. Quite generically, the photon-field superhorizon modes begin to grow when $`q_A1`$ is attained . At that time $`\tau _1`$, $`\rho _A(\tau _1)\rho _\varphi (\tau _1)12\lambda _\varphi \omega _\mathrm{I}^4/e^4`$. The modes stop growing when $`\rho _\varphi \rho _A\rho _s\omega _\mathrm{I}^4/(4\lambda _sc_n^4)`$. On the other hand, a resonating vector mode grows as $`𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}e^{\mu _A\omega _\mathrm{I}\tau }`$ and hence $`\rho _Ae^{2\mu _A\omega _\mathrm{I}\tau }`$, implying the following estimate of the amplification factor $`\chi `$ for superhorizon modes during preheating

$$\chi \left(\frac{\rho _s}{\rho _A(\tau _1)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{e^2}{4c_n^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3\lambda _\varphi \lambda _s}}10^5.$$
(11)
We assume that the photon field at this point freezes in due to large conductivity. The purpose of this simple analysis was to show that superhorizon modes are amplified during preheating, a rough estimate of the amplification factor being Eq. (11). To obtain a more accurate value, the problem should be reanalysed using numerical techniques. We have also studied the evolution of the spectrum by matching the inflation mode functions to those in preheating, $`𝒜_{\mathrm{preh}}^{(\pm )}=\left(2\pi V/\omega _\mathrm{I}\right)^{1/2}e^{(\mu _Ai)\omega _I\tau }`$. At the end of preheating, the spectrum is $`𝒜_{\mathrm{preh}}k^\nu `$, as in Eq. (6), with an additional amplification factor given by Eq. (11). A final matching of the preheating photon modes onto the massless photon modes in radiation results in the spectrum $`𝒜_{\mathrm{rad}}k^{1\nu }`$ computed in section 3, again with the additional amplification factor (11).

## 5 Magnetic field production in the standard model

In this section we show that the amplification mechanism, which we illustrated with the example of scalar electrodynamics, is operative for the standard-model $`Z`$ field just as it is for any gauge field that couples to a light scalar field. Namely, in the $`Z`$-field mode equation (cf. Eq. (2))

$$\left(_\tau ^2+\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+\frac{m_Z^2}{v^2}a^2\rho ^2\right)𝒵_\stackrel{}{k}=0$$
(12)
conformal invariance is broken by the Hartree backreaction term of the standard-model Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Here $`v=246`$ GeV and $`\rho ^2=2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The restriction $`3\lambda _H\rho ^22H_\mathrm{I}^2`$ implies that, in order to obtain substantial amplification of superhorizon modes $`(\nu \text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }1/3)`$, we require $`\lambda _H\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }0.66`$. Equivalently, the Higgs-boson mass must satisfy the lower bound $`m_H=v\sqrt{2\lambda _H}\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }280`$ GeV. The spectrum reads

$$𝒵_\stackrel{}{k}\alpha _\stackrel{}{k}𝒵_\stackrel{}{k}^{(+)}+\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}𝒵_\stackrel{}{k}^{()}k^{1\nu }\mathrm{with}\nu ^2=\frac{1}{4}\frac{m_Z^2}{v^2}\frac{\rho ^2}{H_\mathrm{I}^2},$$
(13)
where $`𝒵_\stackrel{}{k}^{(\pm )}𝒵_{\mathrm{vac}}^{(\pm )}=\left(2\pi V/k\right)^{1/2}e^{ik\tau }`$ (cf. Eq. (3)), and $`\alpha _\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`\beta _\stackrel{}{k}`$ are given in Eq. (10). The non-Abelian component of the $`Z`$ field, i.e. $`W^{(3)}`$, develops a magnetic mass and becomes screened as the Universe thermalises. Only its Abelian component, the hypercharge field $`Y=\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{W}Z`$, survives and freezes into the plasma. Here $`\theta _\mathrm{W}`$ is the Weinberg angle ($`\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{W}0.23`$). After the electroweak transition it is the photon field which remains unscreened with amplitude $`A=\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{W}Y`$. Note that, although the $`Z`$ field and the photon field are orthogonal, the resulting photon spectrum is identical to that of the original $`Z`$ field, apart from an amplitude suppression factor $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{W}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{W}0.42`$.

The situation is analogous to that of light polarisers (see Fig. 2). With two orthogonal light polarisers no light passes. When a third polariser is inserted at an angle $`\theta `$ (with respect to the second polariser) however, some of the photons do pass. The photon amplitude is reduced by $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta `$, just as in the Z-field case. The main advantage of the amplification mechanism presented here is its naturalness. Indeed, no fields are required except those of the standard model and inflation.

One should also consider the possibility of additional enhancement of the field $`Y=\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{W}Z`$ on superhorizon scales during preheating. For this purpose, we envision a hybrid-inflation model in which inflation is driven by the vacuum energy of a GUT Higgs field. After inflation ends, this field begins to oscillate, leading to resonant production of some superheavy gauge fields $`X_i`$. As a consequence the hypercharge field $`Y`$, which couples to the $`X_i`$, grows as well, and freezes in when the Universe thermalises. The details of this amplification mechanism are model-specific and will be presented elsewhere . Finally, we emphasise that the superheavy gauge fields grow resonantly during preheating and suddenly decay after preheating when they become supermassive. These are required properties of the scalar field in the scalar-electrodynamics model considered in sections 2 and 3.

## 6 Magnetic field spectrum

We now consider the possibility that primordial gauge fields from inflation can provide the necessary seed for the galactic dynamo mechanism  and thereby explain the observed presence of micro-Gauss-strength magnetic fields in a large number of spiral galaxies .

The dynamo mechanism amplifies a weak, coherent seed field using the differential rotation of a galaxy in conjunction with the turbulent motion of ionised gas. The length scale relevant for the operation of the galactic dynamo is the size of the largest turbulent eddy, $`100`$ pc. On this scale, there is a minimum strength of the magnetic seed field for which the dynamo can operate. Estimates of this minimal strength lie in the range $`10^{23}`$$`10^{19}`$ G for a universe with critical matter density and zero cosmological constant. The lower bound can be relaxed  to about $`10^{30}`$ G for a flat, low-density universe with a dark-energy component (e.g. a cosmological constant or quintessence), which appears to be favoured by recent results from supernova observations and balloon experiments .

The dynamo scale ($`100`$ pc) corresponds to a comoving scale today of $`\mathrm{}_c10`$ kpc $`1.56\times 10^{36}`$ GeV-1 before gravitational collapse and galaxy formation . Because the concentration of matter into a galaxy brings about an amplification of magnetic fields by a factor $`(\rho _{\mathrm{gal}}/\rho _0)^{2/3}5\times 10^3`$, the bounds that should be imposed on the scale $`\mathrm{}_c`$ are $`B_{\mathrm{seed}}\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }2\times 10^{27}`$ G for a universe with critical matter density and $`B_{\mathrm{seed}}\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }2\times 10^{34}`$ G for a flat, dark-energy dominated, low-density universe.

We consider first the spectrum resulting from scalar electrodynamics (section 3) and the $`Z`$-field case (section 5) and neglect for the time being further amplification which may result from parametric resonance during preheating. At the end of inflation, the scale factor corresponds to an equivalent temperature $`T`$ given by $`H_\mathrm{I}=\pi g_{}^{1/2}(T)T^2/(\sqrt{90}M_\mathrm{P})`$, where $`g_{}(T)10^2`$ is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom. Assuming first that the primordial magnetic field is frozen in the plasma from the time of its creation, the relevant length scale for the magnetic field at the end of inflation is $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}T_0/T`$, where $`T_02.73`$ K is the temperature today.

For $`\overline{k}2\pi /\mathrm{}H_\mathrm{I}`$, the Bogoliubov coefficients $`\alpha _\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`\beta _\stackrel{}{k}`$ given by Eq. (10) are maximal for $`\nu =\overline{\nu }1/21/\mathrm{ln}(2H_\mathrm{I}/\overline{k})`$. For this optimal value of $`\nu `$ one obtains the mode function

$$|𝒜_\stackrel{}{k}|\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{\nu })(\frac{1}{2}\overline{\nu })\left(\frac{V}{H_\mathrm{I}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{k}{2H_\mathrm{I}}\right)^{\overline{\nu }1}.$$
(14)
The magnetic field correlated on a particular scale $`\mathrm{}`$ is defined by

$`B_{\mathrm{}}^2=B_i(\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{x})B_i(\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{x})B_i(\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{x})B_i(\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{x})_{\mathrm{vac}},`$ (15)
$`B_i(\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi \mathrm{}^3}}{\displaystyle _{|\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{x}|\mathrm{}}}d^3yB_i(\stackrel{}{y}),`$ (16)
where the average $``$ is taken over Fock space as well as the position $`\stackrel{}{x}`$. For $`\mathrm{}H_\mathrm{I}1`$ one finds

$$B_{\mathrm{}}=3\times 2^{\overline{\nu }2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{\nu })}{\pi }(\frac{1}{2}\overline{\nu })H_\mathrm{I}^2(\mathrm{}H_\mathrm{I})^{\overline{\nu }\frac{3}{2}}.$$
(17)
The magnetic field then is assumed to be frozen in the plasma such that today $`B_\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}=B_{\mathrm{}}(T_0/T)^2`$. Since roughly $`B_\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}T`$, both $`B_\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ are larger for higher inflation scale $`H_\mathrm{I}T^2`$. Taking $`H_\mathrm{I}10^{13}`$ GeV (corresponding to $`T10^{15}`$ GeV) we find $`B_{\mathrm{}}10^{22}`$ G at the end of inflation, and $`B_\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}10^{34}`$ G today at a comoving scale of 10 kpc (see Fig. 3).

In section 4 we showed that this field strength can be further amplified by a factor of about $`10^5`$ through parametric resonance with an oscillating scalar field, leading to $`B_\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}10^{29}`$ G. A supplementary increase in field strength is obtained if we assume that the magnetic field does not freeze into the plasma upon creation, but rather that its correlation length grows quicker than the scale factor, as is the case for helical turbulence . Such a causal mechanism can only operate on a given comoving scale after this scale has reentered the horizon. One can show that the growth of correlations due to turbulent evolution leads to an additional amplification of about $`(\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{eq}}/\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c})^{2(1\nu )/3}`$, where $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{eq}}50`$ Mpc denotes the equal matter-radiation horizon today. For $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}=10`$ kpc the amplification is about 20. For other types of turbulence the amplification may be somewhat smaller.

In Fig. 3 we display the spectrum $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the magnetic field for the different histories of amplification discussed in this section and compare with the comoving $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}=10`$ kpc seed-field bounds, which are $`B_{\mathrm{seed}}\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }2\times 10^{27}`$ G in a universe with critical matter density (presently disfavoured by observations) and $`B_{\mathrm{seed}}\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }2\times 10^{34}`$ G in a flat, low-density universe dominated by dark energy. The corresponding field strengths and bounds in a newborn galaxy can be obtained by multiplying with a factor $`5\times 10^3`$.

To conclude, in this Letter we have presented a generic mechanism for production of gauge fields during inflation which predicts an almost scale-invariant spectrum for gauge fields, comparable with the scale-invariant spectrum of cosmological perturbations. When applied to electromagnetism, the resulting magnetic-field spectrum $`B_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^{\nu 3/2}\mathrm{}^1`$ can provide strong enough seed fields to explain the origin of galactic magnetic fields.

## Acknowledgements

TP wishes to thank M. Giovannini and M. Shaposhnikov for useful discussions. Support for KD was provided by DGICYT grant PB98-0693 and by the European Union under contract ERBFMRX-CT96-0090; for OT by the European Union under contract ERBFMBI-CT97-2697 and by a CERN visiting fellowship. We gratefully acknowledge travel support by the U.K. PPARC.