text:
# The simplest curvaton model

## I Introduction

There has recently been renewed interest in an alternative inflationary mechanism for generating an approximately scale-invariant adiabatic density perturbation spectrum to the usual one. Rather than immediately generating a curvature perturbation via perturbations in the inflaton field LL , instead the mechanism relies on isocurvature perturbations in another scalar field whose energy density is subdominant during inflation. After inflation ends this second scalar field comes to contribute significantly to the energy density, at which point the isocurvature perturbation converts to adiabatic even on superhorizon scales. Subsequent complete decay of this second field guarantees purely adiabatic perturbations, though variants on this scenario can leave a residual isocurvature component too. This mechanism of conversion from isocurvature to adiabatic perturbations was first discussed long ago by Mollerach Moll , was briefly mentioned by Linde and Mukhanov LinMuk  in a paper primarily focussing on scenarios for nongaussian isocurvature perturbations, and more recently received renewed attention in Refs. ES ; LW ; MT . Amongst these, Lyth and Wands LW  considered the scenario in the broadest context, and named the second scalar field the curvaton.

While Lyth and Wands described the development of the perturbations in considerable detail, they sought to keep their discussion as model-independent as possible and did not discuss a specific inflationary scenario. In this paper we give a specific realization of the curvaton scenario and to evaluate all the constraints on model building that need to be satisfied for a successful scenario.

## II The simplest curvaton model

While the general curvaton scenario allows perturbation generation featuring possible isocurvature components and possible nongaussianity, our aim here is to construct a simple curvaton model which creates a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of gaussian and purely adiabatic perturbations. The simplest possible curvaton model features two massive non-interacting scalar fields, giving a potential

$$V(\varphi ,\sigma )=\frac{1}{2}M^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{2}m^2\sigma ^2,$$
(1)
where we indicate the inflaton by $`\varphi `$ and the curvaton by $`\sigma `$. The scenario requires that the curvaton energy density contributes negligibly during inflation (in particular the final stages). Since generically the curvaton will end up being the lighter of the two fields, it turns out that the curvaton must be close to its minimum, in order to prevent it driving a second period of inflation after the $`\varphi `$-driven inflation is complete. Under these constraints, $`\sigma `$ will remain constant to a good approximation during the later stages of inflation, and we indicate this constant value by $`\sigma _{}`$. This initial condition is not fixed by the theory, but rather represents an additional free parameter to be fixed by observations.111Under this condition the oscillation mechanism of Ref. BMR  is highly suppressed, and no mixture of correlated adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations will be relevant at the end of inflation. The curvaton’s subdominance requires $`m^2\sigma _{}^2M^2\varphi ^2`$ during inflation (where we will have $`\varphi m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ where $`m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is the Planck mass).

The early stages of inflation set the global mean of $`\sigma _{}`$ in our observable Universe and arrange its classical homogeneity, and it then receives perturbations via the usual quantum mechanism, with the typical perturbation accrued in a Hubble time being $`\delta \sigma H/2\pi `$. In order for the eventual curvature perturbation to be gaussian, this perturbation must be small compared to the mean value of the field, and so we require $`\sigma _{}^2H^2/4\pi ^2`$. For these quantum perturbations to be the dominant influence on the curvaton, it must be effectively massless during inflation which requires $`m^2H^24\pi M^2\varphi ^2/3m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$.

Once inflation is over and the inflaton energy density converted to radiation, the $`\sigma `$ field will continue to remain constant while its mass is negligible compared to the Hubble parameter. Once $`m^2H^2`$, it will begin to oscillate about the minimum of its potential, its energy density decaying at an average rate of $`\rho _\sigma 1/a^3`$ (the Universe will have to still be radiation dominated by this stage, as otherwise the domination of $`\sigma `$ will initiate a new period of inflation).

The final stage is the decay of the curvaton, which in this paper we will assume is a complete decay into conventional matter which thermalizes with the existing radiation. The decay occurs on a timescale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$, which is a further free parameter of the scenario. The most conservative constraint on the decay rate is that conventional radiation domination had better be in place by nucleosynthesis, though baryogenesis scenarios are likely to require a much earlier decay. Decay will happen when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma H`$, so this requires $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma >H_{\mathrm{nuc}}10^{40}m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. The time until decay sets the magnitude of the curvature perturbation generated, because it determines what fraction of the mean energy density comes from the curvaton when it decays. We require to match the COBE normalization; this sets a minimum requirement on the size of the curvaton fluctuations because they must be large enough to generate the required perturbations in the limit where the curvaton field is completely dominant when it decays. The inflaton will also generate a curvature perturbation at some level, and while a mixed perturbation scenario is permitted we will only consider here the case where the inflaton-generated perturbation is negligible, which requires $`M10^6m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$.

## III Model constraints

### III.1 The case of prompt reheating

In this subsection, we shall assume that after inflation ends reheating occurs promptly, with the inflaton decaying into radiation. In that case, no further parameters are necessary to specify the scenario; we have four parameters which are the two masses $`m`$ and $`M`$, the curvaton value during inflation $`\sigma _{}`$, and the curvaton decay constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$.

In a quadratic potential, inflation ends by violation of slow-roll at $`\varphi _{\mathrm{end}}m_{\mathrm{Pl}}/\sqrt{4\pi }`$, corresponding to a Hubble parameter $`H_{\mathrm{end}}^2=M^2/3`$. During the subsequent radiation-dominated era $`H^2=H_{\mathrm{end}}^2a_{\mathrm{end}}^4/a^4`$ where $`a`$ is the scale factor.

The next event to take place is for the curvaton to become effectively massive, $`m^2=H^2`$. This happens when

$$\left(\frac{a_{\mathrm{mass}}}{a_{\mathrm{end}}}\right)^4=\frac{M^2}{3m^2}.$$
(2)
In order to prevent a period of curvaton-driven inflation, the Universe must still be radiation dominated at that point, which implies a significant constraint

$$\sigma _{}^2\frac{3}{4\pi }m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2.$$
(3)
This is a substantial restriction amongst all the possible values that $`\sigma `$ might have taken (most of which would result in a long epoch of $`\sigma `$-driven inflation after the $`\varphi `$ field has reached its minimum).

The most important constraint on the parameters is the requirement of reproducing the observed perturbation amplitude. Denoting the ratio of the curvaton energy density to that of radiation by $`r\rho _\sigma /\rho _{\mathrm{rad}}`$, in the limit where $`r<1`$ (i.e. the curvaton decays during radiation domination), Lyth and Wands LW  demonstrated that the spectrum of the Bardeen parameter $`𝒫_\zeta `$, whose observed value is about $`2\times 10^9`$, is given by

$$𝒫_\zeta \frac{r_{\mathrm{decay}}^2}{16}\frac{H_{}^2}{\pi ^2\sigma _{}^2},$$
(4)
where

$$H_{}^2\frac{100}{3}M^2$$
(5)
is the Hubble parameter when observable perturbations were generated, around 50 $`e`$-foldings before the end of inflation, and

$$r=\frac{\rho _\sigma ^{\mathrm{end}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{end}}}\left(\frac{a_{\mathrm{mass}}}{a_{\mathrm{end}}}\right)^4\frac{a}{a_{\mathrm{mass}}}=\frac{4\pi }{3}\frac{\sigma _{}^2}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}\frac{a}{a_{\mathrm{mass}}}.$$
(6)
Continuing to presume that the Universe is still radiation dominated at decay, this will be at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^2=H^2=H_{\mathrm{end}}^2a_{\mathrm{end}}^4/a^4`$, giving

$$r_{\mathrm{decay}}=\frac{4\pi }{3}\frac{\sigma _{}^2}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}\sqrt{\frac{m}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma }},$$
(7)
and hence

$$𝒫_\zeta 4\frac{mM^2\sigma _{}^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^4}\text{(for }r_{\mathrm{decay}}<1\text{)}.$$
(8)
We find that achieving the correct perturbation amplitude, in combination with other constraints, excludes all the regions of parameter space where the curvaton decays while still effectively massless.

In the opposite regime, where $`r_{\mathrm{decay}}`$ exceeds one and so decay occurs after curvaton domination, this formula no longer holds and instead the perturbation produced becomes independent of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$, being LW

$$𝒫_\zeta \frac{1}{9}\frac{H_{}^2}{\pi ^2\sigma _{}^2}\frac{M^2}{4\sigma _{}^2}\text{(for }r_{\mathrm{decay}}>1\text{)}.$$
(9)
The two expressions agree at the transition $`r_{\mathrm{decay}}1`$. Note that if this last expression is normalized as quoted above, the gaussianity condition $`\sigma _{}^2H_{}^2/4\pi ^2M^2`$ is automatically satisfied.

With four parameters to vary and only one equality, Eq. (8) or (9), imposed upon them, we expect quite a bit of freedom in choosing suitable parameters. However the set of inequalities the parameters must satisfy is a large one, and it turns out that viable parameter space is quite restricted. For definiteness, we set thresholds that the inflaton perturbation must be no more than ten percent of the curvaton perturbation (i.e. $`M<3\times 10^7m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$) and that the gaussianity condition $`\sigma _{}^2H_{}^2/4\pi ^2`$ on observable scales be satisfied by an order of magnitude.

We proceed by considering triplets of values $`(m,M,\sigma _{})`$. For such a triplet, we fix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ using the power spectrum normalization. In some areas of parameter space this cannot be achieved, either because the curvaton perturbations are too small even if the curvaton energy density becomes dominant, or because one would violate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma 10^{40}m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ as required by nucleosynthesis. Otherwise, we then test whether the many other requirements to build a successful model are achieved, namely we must guarantee that the inflaton dominates during inflation, that the curvature perturbation from the inflaton is negligible, that the curvaton is effectively massless during inflation and that the curvature perturbations resulting from the curvaton are gaussian, and that the curvaton energy density is still subdominant when it begins oscillating. This set of constraints slices off regions of the parameter space, leaving the region in which viable models can be constructed.

Fig. 1 shows the allowed regions for two choices of $`\sigma _{}`$, with the main constraints plotted. The perturbation amplitude constraint has two branches; the vertical part indicates that the models cannot reach the required perturbation amplitude even once the curvaton becomes fully dominant,222On the vertical line itself lie models where the curvaton can dominate at decay; these are best analyzed separately which we do in the following paragraphs. while the lower part of the curve indicates that the perturbations have not grown sufficiently by nucleosynthesis. For low $`\sigma _{}`$, the nongaussianity constraint sweeps leftwards across the allowed region and there are no viable models once $`\sigma _{}10^{10}m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. For high $`\sigma _{}`$ it becomes impossible to generate sufficient perturbations, cutting off parameter space above $`\sigma _{}3\times 10^3m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. There is however a significant parameter space of viable models satisfying all our requirements.

For the special case of the curvaton decaying when its energy density is dominating over radiation, an analytical analysis of the parameter space is possible. In this case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ no longer enters into the relevant expression for $`𝒫_\zeta `$, Eq. (9). Thus, using the power spectrum normalization to fix the value of $`\sigma _{}`$ in terms of $`M`$ as $`\sigma _{}^2=1.2\times 10^8M^2`$, the relevant constraints reduce to

$$M<3\times 10^7m_{\mathrm{Pl}},m^2\frac{M^2}{3}$$
(10)
and

$$H_{\mathrm{nucl}}10^{40}m_{\mathrm{Pl}}<\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma <\left(\frac{4\pi }{3}\right)^2m\left(\frac{\sigma _{}}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\right)^4.$$
(11)
The first two conditions require that the inflaton-generated perturbations be subdominant and that the curvaton be massless during inflation respectively, and are the same as before. If they are satisfied, the remaining constraints automatically follow. The condition on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ derives from requiring $`r_{\mathrm{decay}}>1`$, where in this case

$$r_{\mathrm{decay}}=\left(\frac{4\pi }{3}\right)^{4/3}\left(\frac{\sigma _{}}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\right)^{8/3}\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma }\right)^{2/3},$$
(12)
as a consequence of the $`\sigma `$ decay after curvaton domination.

The formulae Eqs. (10) and (11) give an allowed region in the $`m`$$`M`$ plane shown in Fig. 2. At each point within the allowed region there is a range of permitted $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ indicated by Eq. (11) which gives the correct density perturbation normalization. These regions correspond to the vertical part of the perturbation amplitude constraint in Fig. 1 for the corresponding $`\sigma _{}`$.

### III.2 The case of prolonged reheating

Reheating is not expected to be instantaneous, and in this subsection we generalize the previous results to allow for a delay before reheating is complete. However there are no qualitative differences to the scenario and so we will keep the discussion fairly brief.

In the case of prolonged reheating, after inflation there is a significant period during which the inflaton oscillates coherently at the bottom of its potential. Its ultimate decay products will be considered much lighter than $`\varphi `$ itself thus constituting the radiation, and we assume that $`\varphi `$ decays into radiation with a rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$. We make the assumption that there are no significant decays of the inflaton into the curvaton field.333Were there such decays, they would typically generate an extra, nearly homogeneous, component of the curvaton energy density, which might affect the ability of the curvaton to generate sufficiently large perturbations. The new parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ enters to modify the previous constraints.

To prevent a new period of inflation driven by the curvaton, its energy density must still be subdominant during reheating. Following some standard approximations KT , we can say that the inflaton $`\varphi `$ starts oscillating at the end of inflation (when $`H_{\mathrm{end}}^2=M^2/3`$) and it behaves as $`\rho _\varphi a^3`$ until $`H\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$, when it decreases exponentially ($`\rho _\varphi e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi t}`$) producing most of the radiation. When $`H\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ reheating is completed. Before that point some radiation will be produced, but it is subdominant and $`\rho _{\mathrm{rad}}`$ scales as $`a^{3/2}`$. After reheating the universe will be radiation dominated.

Concerning the curvaton we can consider two situations, one where $`\sigma `$ starts oscillating *after* reheating, and the other where it begins oscillating *during* reheating. Just for illustrative purposes we assume that $`\sigma `$ finally decays with a rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ after reheating when it is still subdominant with respect to the produced radiation. Then $`P_\zeta `$ is given by Eq. (4) with $`r_{\text{decay}}<1`$. The constraints defining the curvaton model during inflation, as described in Sec. II, still hold as does the requirement $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma >H_{\mathrm{nucl}}10^{40}m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. When $`\sigma `$ starts oscillating it should be a subdominant component in order to prevent a period of curvaton-driven inflation, and it can be checked that this constraint remains the same as Eq. (3).

In the case where the oscillations of the curvaton start after reheating $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi >m`$ and

$$\left(\frac{a_{\mathrm{reh}}}{a_{\mathrm{mass}}}\right)^4=\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^2},$$
(13)
where $`a_{\mathrm{reh}}`$ is the scale factor at the end of reheating.

On the other hand the produced radiation has an energy density $`\rho _{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{reh}}=3m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^2/8\pi `$. As a consequence the expression for $`r_{\mathrm{decay}}`$ is exactly the same of Eq. (7), and it is independent of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$

$$r_{\mathrm{decay}}=\frac{4\pi }{3}\sigma _{}^2\frac{m^2}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{m^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma }}.$$
(14)
Note, however, that if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi >m`$ and the constraint in Eq. (3) is satisfied, then

$$\frac{4\pi }{3}\sigma _{}^2\frac{m^2}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^2.$$
(15)
This amounts to saying that throughout reheating the energy density of the curvaton has to be much smaller than the radiation energy density at the end of reheating. The strong constraint in Eq. (15) implies that the ratio $`r`$ at the moment of the curvaton decay can indeed be much smaller than in the case of prompt reheating. In fact this case is recovered when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^2=H_{\mathrm{end}}^2=M^2/3`$, but for a prolonged period of reheating $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^2<H_{\mathrm{end}}^2`$. Thus a similar analysis of the parameter space could be done as in the previous subsection, taking into account now that $`m^2<\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^2<M^2/3`$.

The curvaton begins oscillating during reheating when

$$\left(\frac{a_{\mathrm{mass}}}{a_{\mathrm{end}}}\right)^3=\frac{M^2}{3m^2}.$$
(16)
In the approximation $`\rho _{\mathrm{rad}}^{\mathrm{reh}}\rho _\varphi ^{\mathrm{end}}(a_{\mathrm{end}}/a_{\mathrm{reh}})^3`$, one finds

$$r_{\mathrm{decay}}=\frac{4\pi }{3}\frac{\sigma _{}^2}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma }}.$$
(17)
Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi <m`$, a comparison with Eq. (14) shows that $`r_{\mathrm{decay}}`$ can be even smaller than in the case when $`\sigma `$ starts oscillating after reheating: once $`\sigma _{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma \mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ are fixed, the curvaton energy density starts decreasing as $`a^3`$ at an earlier time.

## IV Conclusions

The curvaton model is an interesting new proposal for generating the approximately scale-invariant curvature perturbations which presently give the best match to observational data. While nongaussianity would not necessarily be an observational disaster, we have chosen to restrict our attentions to gaussian models. We have constructed the simplest possible realization of this idea, and demonstrated how various requirements close off regions of parameter space while leaving a substantial area of viable models. Even this simplest model, with prompt reheating, features four parameters, and so the predicted perturbations in different regions of parameter space are highly degenerate.

While three of these parameters ($`m`$, $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$) are parameters of the underlying theory, the fourth, $`\sigma _{}`$, refers to the initial conditions for our patch of the Universe. The required values of $`\sigma _{}`$ for a successful curvaton model have magnitude less than about $`10^3m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, which represents only a small region of the plausible values for $`\sigma _{}`$ that might exist during inflation, as its potential has too low a magnitude to influence the dynamics. Nevertheless, in a typical chaotic inflation scenario one expects regions which do satisfy this criterion by chance. If one wishes, there are also opportunities to introduce anthropic principle considerations; for fixed values of $`m`$ and $`M`$, regions with large $`\sigma _{}`$ would typically lead to the inflaton evolving to the bottom of its potential followed by a period of slow-roll inflation driven by the curvaton, which given the small value of $`m`$ would generate a much lower level of curvature perturbations than in the curvaton domain and hence not give rise to structure in the Universe.

As far as the density perturbations are concerned, the predictions of these models are indistinguishable from slow-roll inflation models arranged to give the same spectral index. However, the curvaton model has the feature that the gravitational wave amplitude is predicted to be low, because the Hubble rate during inflation is less than in an equivalent slow-roll model. In particular, the scalar and tensor perturbations typically will not obey the usual consistency relation (see e.g. Ref. LL ). In fact, in a natural curvaton model where $`\sigma `$ is extremely light ($`m^2H^2`$) and subdominant with respect to the inflaton, the scalar and tensor indices are predicted to be the same: $`n_s1=n_t+2m^2/3H_{}^2n_t`$ LW . Equal spectral indices is a prediction of the power-law class of conventional inflation models, but they predict a high amplitude of gravitational waves, contrary to the curvaton model. Unfortunately however the low amplitude of tensors in the curvaton model makes it difficult to detect the tensors at all, and one cannot expect a useful measure of their spectral index.

While one can certainly design slow-roll inflation models with any spectral index for the density perturbations and negligible gravitational waves, so that the curvaton model predictions cannot be viewed as distinct, a detection of a significant amplitude of gravitational waves would be sufficient to rule out these curvaton models. It is however interesting to note that present observations of large-scale structure and cosmic microwave background anisotropies tend to prefer a slight red tilt and a low contribution of tensor modes WTZ , as predicted by models of the type we have discussed.

## Acknowledgments

N.B. was partially supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship of the European Community programme HUMAN POTENTIAL under contract HPMT-CT-2000-00096, and A.R.L. in part by the Leverhulme Trust. We thank David Lyth and David Wands for discussions.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the fundamental problems facing particle physics is understanding the nature of electroweak symmetry breaking. If this symmetry breaking is due to a light Higgs boson, then the Higgs boson will certainly be discovered at the Tevatron  or the LHC . The remaining challenge will then be to understand whether this new object is the Higgs boson of the Standard Model (SM) or some more exotic particle. In the SM, the couplings of the Higgs boson to all particles are completely fixed once the mass is known and so the validity of the SM can be confirmed by measuring Higgs production and decay rates and eventually the Higgs potential itself . In alternative models, the Higgs couplings can be quite different from the SM values and so can potentially be used to distinguish between models.

A linear collider (LC) with an energy in the range $`\sqrt{s}350500\mathrm{GeV}`$ has the capability for performing precision measurements of both Higgs boson production and decay rates , provided that the Higgs boson mass, $`M_h`$, lies in the range predicted by electroweak precision observables, $`M_h\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}200}\mathrm{GeV}`$ . The dominant production mechanism for such a light Higgs boson is $`e^+e^{}hZ`$ , with the largest decay channel being $`hb\overline{b}`$ or $`hWW^{}`$. The measurements must be interpreted in terms of SM expectations or some model of physics beyond the SM. The goal is then to use the experimental data to disentangle the underlying structure of the model. An important question is thus the required experimental precision for production rates and branching ratios in order to distinguish it from the SM and perhaps to measure the parameters of the new theory.

An integrated luminosity of $`500`$ $`\text{fb}^1`$ and $`\sqrt{s}=350\mathrm{GeV}`$ is expected to produce measurements of the various Higgs branching ratios with precisions in the $`210\%`$ range at an $`e^+e`$ collider . The precision will be less at $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, primarily due to the reduced rate . The LHC can measure some, but not all, Higgs branching ratios, with a precision which is typically less than that obtainable at a LC .

Supersymmetric (SUSY) theories  are widely considered as the theoretically most appealing extension of the SM. They are consistent with the approximate unification of the three gauge coupling constants at the GUT scale and provide a way to cancel the quadratic divergences in the Higgs sector, hence stabilizing the huge hierarchy between the GUT and the Fermi scales. Furthermore, in SUSY theories the breaking of the electroweak symmetry is naturally induced at the Fermi scale, and the lightest supersymmetric particle can be neutral, weakly interacting and absolutely stable, providing a natural solution for the Dark Matter problem. Therefore the implications of the measurements of Higgs boson branching ratios have been extensively studied within the context of the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM) . This model is extremely predictive and so is useful for comparing the experimental reach achievable in various channels.

In this note we address the question of whether the total $`e^+e^{}hZ`$ cross section, $`\sigma _{hZ}`$, can be used as a precision observable to help determine the structure of the electroweak sector of the MSSM. The measurement of the $`e^+e^{}hZ`$ Higgsstrahlung production cross section is expected to achieve a $`23\%`$ accuracy at $`\sqrt{s}=350\mathrm{GeV}`$ . This assumes $`=500`$ $`\text{fb}^1`$ and the analysis of the $`Zl^+l^{}`$ events only. From this measurement, some restrictions can be inferred about the parameters of the MSSM, which we investigate here. For the Higgsstrahlung process, the complete next-to-leading order corrections (involving SM and SUSY particles), including all vertex and box corrections have been calculated . More recently also the leading two-loop corrections have been included . Since these corrections are significant, their inclusion is crucial for drawing conclusions about the underlying model.

Our study differs considerably from previous studies of the Higgs branching ratios in that we investigate plausible future scenarios and estimate uncertainties from all relevant sources. We assume that some MSSM particle masses and mixing angles have been determined at the LHC and/or the LC, and vary all inputs accordingly within realistic errors, instead of fixing all parameters and then varying just one or two. Furthermore, the anticipated theory errors from unknown higher order corrections in the MSSM Higgs sector are taken into account in a consistent manner. We then ask what can be learned about the remaining unknown parameters of the model. These assumptions try to represent possible future scenarios and thus give an idea of what might be inferred from a precise $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ measurement.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we review the necessary MSSM input parameters and existing higher order corrections in the Higgs sector. Our approach to the investigation, with emphasis on the attempt to look into realistic future scenarios, is explained in detail in section 3. Section 4 contains our analysis and the corresponding results, while conclusions can be found in section 5.

## 2 The MSSM: Basics

The Higgs sector of the MSSM consists of two Higgs doublets, $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ . After electroweak symmetry breaking, there remain $`5`$ physical Higgs bosons: $`h,H,A`$, and $`H^\pm `$. In this note, we will be concerned only with the production of the lightest Higgs boson, $`h`$. The Higgs sector is described at tree level by two additional parameters (besides the SM parameters), which are usually chosen to be $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the ratio of the Higgs VEVs, and $`M_A`$, the mass of the pseudoscalar Higgs boson. The mass eigenstates of the neutral scalar Higgs bosons are obtained from the interaction eigenstates $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ by the rotation,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}H\\ h\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{sin}\alpha \\ \mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1\\ \varphi _2\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where at tree level

$$\mathrm{tan}2\alpha =\mathrm{tan}2\beta \left(\frac{M_A^2+M_Z^2}{M_A^2M_Z^2}\right).$$
(2)
At tree level, the mass of the lightest Higgs boson is completely fixed in terms of $`M_Z`$, $`M_A`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

The process $`e^+e^{}hZ`$ proceeds (at the tree-level) via the Feynman diagram shown in Fig. 1 and is hence sensitive to the $`ZZh`$ coupling. At tree level, the $`ZZh`$ coupling in the MSSM is altered from the SM value,

$$g_{ZZh}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}=g_{ZZh}^{\mathrm{SM}}\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha ).$$
(3)
For $`M_AM_Z`$, $`\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )1`$ and the coupling of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson to the $`Z`$ boson approaches that of the SM. We therefore expect that $`\sigma _{hZ}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ will be sensitive to small $`M_A`$.

There are two important effects which arise when going beyond the tree level. The first is that the Higgs boson mass prediction is significantly increased by radiative corrections, leading to an upper bound at the two-loop level  of $`M_h\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}135}\mathrm{GeV}`$ . The most important corrections are those in the $`t/\stackrel{~}{t}`$ sector  and for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ also those in the $`b/\stackrel{~}{b}`$ sector. The mass matrices in the basis of the current eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_L,\stackrel{~}{b}_R`$ are given by

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2+m_t^2+\mathrm{cos}2\beta (\frac{1}{2}\frac{2}{3}s_W^2)M_Z^2& m_tX_t\\ m_tX_t& M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2+m_t^2+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{cos}2\beta s_W^2M_Z^2\end{array}\right),`$ (6)
$`_{\stackrel{~}{b}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_L}^2+m_b^2+\mathrm{cos}2\beta (\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}s_W^2)M_Z^2& m_bX_b\\ m_bX_b& M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}^2+m_b^2\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{cos}2\beta s_W^2M_Z^2\end{array}\right),`$ (9)
where $`s_W^2=1c_W^2=1M_W^2/M_Z^2`$ and

$$m_tX_t=m_t(A_t\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta ),m_bX_b=m_b(A_b\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta ).$$
(10)
Here $`A_t`$ denotes the trilinear Higgs–stop coupling, $`A_b`$ is the Higgs–sbottom coupling, and $`\mu `$ is the Higgs mixing parameter. SU(2) gauge invariance leads to the relation

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}=M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_L}.$$
(11)
The two mass matrices (6), (9) are diagonalized by the angles $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ and $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$, respectively. The physical squark masses are $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}`$. Specifying $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$, and $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, along with $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ therefore implicitly fixes the tri-linear mixing parameter $`A_t`$, and similarly in the $`b`$-squark sector. The radiatively corrected value for the lightest MSSM Higgs boson mass, $`M_h`$, depends sensitively on the parameters of the stop mass matrix (6).

The second important effect of going beyond tree level is that the SUSY particles enter into loop corrections. The complete set of one-loop corrections to the process $`e^+e^{}hZ`$ has been computed in Ref. . In addition, the leading two loop corrections have been included . The effects of including these corrections have been discussed in detail in Ref.  and are seen to be large. This applies in particular for the two-loop corrections. Our analysis includes therefore all one-loop SM and SUSY corrections, along with the leading two-loop corrections. From the analysis in Ref.  one can infer a theoretical uncertainty due to unknown higher order corrections for the prediction of $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ of $`5\%`$.

## 3 Concept of the analysis

The focus here is to determine in the context of SUSY what new information can be obtained from a precision measurement of $`\sigma _{hZ}`$, beyond the direct measurement of the lightest Higgs boson mass. At the time of a $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ measurement at the LC, SUSY (if it exists at a low mass scale) will have been discovered at the LHC and possibly confirmed by the LC. Therefore some SUSY parameters will be known with high precision from the LC measurements, while others (e.g. masses beyond the kinematic reach of the LC) will be known with lesser precision from the LHC data. In the Higgs sector it is possible that only the lightest MSSM Higgs boson will have been measured (e.g. for $`M_A\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}300}`$ and moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 10`$. Only for relatively small masses, $`M_H,M_A\stackrel{<}{}\sqrt{s}/2`$, will the heavy Higgs bosons be visible at the LC.

In a realistic analysis at the time of the LC the following has to be taken into account:

* uncertainties of the measured SM parameters
* uncertainties of the measured MSSM parameters
* intrinsic uncertainties on the theoretical prediction of the MSSM Higgs sector parameters ($`M_h,\sigma _{hZ},\mathrm{}`$) from unknown higher order corrections
* bremsstrahlung
* beamstrahlung
* other machine related uncertainties, e.g. due to the luminosity measurement, detector smearing etc.

A full simulation clearly goes beyond the scope of this exploratory analysis. However, we try to give a realistic impression about the information which can be obtained from a $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ measurement. To this end we include the following:

* the relevant SM uncertainties arising from the $`m_t`$ measurement
* we take into account all uncertainties on the MSSM parameters from their measurement at the LHC  and/or the LC 111 The errors are similar to those used in Ref. , where besides the pure experimental resolution also the anticipated theoretical uncertainty entering the extraction of the parameters has been taken into account. . To study the dependence of the cross section on the parameters, we vary all parameters within their expected precisions and include effects of SUSY particles beyond the leading order as described in the previous section.
* we assume a future theoretical uncertainty in the prediction of $`M_h`$ from the other SUSY input parameters of $`0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ (which affects mainly the connection of the different SUSY parameters to each other). For the theoretical prediction of $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ an uncertainty of 1% is assumed from unknown higher order corrections. However, the Higgs boson mass value that will be used in the future will be determined to $`\pm 0.05\mathrm{GeV}`$ (see below) and thus will have a negligible error. (Numerically the uncertainty of $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ is taken into account by allowing a variation of the Higgs boson mass as an input parameter in the $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ evaluation by $`\pm 0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$. This (by numerical coincidence) reproduces the “desired” theoretical uncertainty in $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ of $`1\%`$.)
* we do not include beamstrahlung, bremsstrahlung, or detector effects, which are beyond the scope of this note. While the latter can only be realized in a full simulation, the former mostly induce a shift in the numerical results, but have a much smaller effect on the errors.
* we neglect luminosity errors. Concerning these, it might be helpful not to investigate $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ directly, but to consider e.g. $`\sigma _{hZ}/\sigma _{ZZ}`$, since in this ratio many uncertainties cancel out. However, the idea of this analysis is to show the possible potential of a precise cross section measurement, which can already be obtained from an analysis of $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ alone.

Taking into account the relevant uncertainties in the above manner necessarily weakens the potential of a precise $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ measurement, see Sect. 4. This approach is contrary to existing analyses . In these previous analyses, all parameters, except for the one under investigation, are fixed. Furthermore, all theoretical uncertainties for the evaluation of the Higgs sector observables are neglected. The potentially measured effect is then attributed solely to the one parameter under investigation, whereas part of the effect could be due to other sources, such as variations in one of the parameters held fixed (within the corresponding experimental errors) or due to the theoretical uncertainties. In this way the sensitivity to the investigated parameters is incorrectly enhanced. Our approach, on the other hand, results in a smaller sensitivity, but constitutes a more realistic scenario for the investigation of LC analyses.

For this analysis we assume that $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ is measured at $`\sqrt{s}=350\mathrm{GeV}`$ with $`=500`$ $`\text{fb}^1`$.222 Possible LC run scenarios have been investigated in Ref. . They usually assume first some high(er)-energy run and afterwards several shorter runs at lower energies, which we summarize here as one run at $`\sqrt{s}=350\mathrm{GeV}`$ with $`=500`$ $`\text{fb}^1`$.  In all the investigated scenarios, we assume that the Higgs boson mass will have been measured to an experimental accuracy of

$$M_h^{\mathrm{exp}}=115\pm 0.05\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(12)
However, as mentioned above, within the MSSM this experimental error will always be dominated by the theoretical uncertainty on the prediction of $`M_h`$ due to unknown higher order corrections. While the current uncertainty in the $`M_h`$ prediction is estimated to be $`3\mathrm{GeV}`$ , we assume for the future uncertainty

$$\delta M_h^{\mathrm{theo}}(\mathrm{future})=\pm 0.5\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(13)
Also the dependence of $`M_h`$ on the top quark mass is very strong, $`\delta m_t/\delta M_h1`$. However, $`m_t`$ will be determined to an accuracy better than $`130\mathrm{MeV}`$ at a LC , so that the parametric uncertainty is smaller than the theoretical uncertainty. It is, however, taken into account.

Since the value of $`M_h`$ in the MSSM is not a free parameter, but depends on the other SUSY parameters, they have to be chosen such that the value of $`M_h=115\pm 0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ emerges. The numerical evaluation of the MSSM Higgs sector (including $`M_h`$ and $`\sigma _{hZ}`$) is based on the code FeynHiggsXS .

## 4 Analysis and results

In order to make progress in understanding the sensitivity of the total cross section to the input parameters, the approach explained above has been applied to two possible future scenarios. In both scenarios we make assumptions what parameters will be measured and what parameters are left free. This choice, since it involves the unknown MSSM parameters and their detectability, is of course subject to personal opinions. However, the scenarios certainly reflect the possible strength of the $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ measurement as explained in the previous section.

### 4.1 The Higgs sector scenario

In the first scenario we assume that the gaugino and squark masses and mixing angles have been measured at the LHC  and/or the LC . For our analysis, the most important input parameter is the top quark mass and its associated error. Here we assume

$$m_t^{\mathrm{exp}}=175\pm 0.1\mathrm{GeV},$$
(14)
which is the anticipated precision from a high energy linear collider .

In the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ sector, we chose

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ $`=`$ $`500\pm 2\mathrm{GeV}`$ (15)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ $`=`$ $`700\pm 10\mathrm{GeV}`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`.69\pm 0.014.`$ (17)
This precision for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ could most probably only be realized with an LC measurement at an energy of $`\sqrt{s}=1\mathrm{TeV}`$. A more conservative choice would be $`\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=10\mathrm{GeV}`$ and an error on $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ of up to 10%, which can be achieved at the LHC 333 The precision of 10% for $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ is relatively preliminary and optimistic. The subject of $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ measurements at the LHC is still under development, see e.g. Ref. . . In the analysis we will first investigate the implications of a LC precision, but comment also on the LHC precision results as well.

With the above measurements, $`A_t`$ is given implicitly in terms of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We furthermore fix,

$$\mu =200\pm 1\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(18)
We assume approximate unification of the trilinear Higgs-sfermion couplings and take:

$`A_b`$ $`=`$ $`A_t\pm 10\%`$ (19)
$`A_l`$ $`=`$ $`A_t\pm 1\%.`$ (20)
In addition, we assume the relationship between gaugino masses predicted in many unified models. The specific values we take are:

$`M_2`$ $`=`$ $`400\pm 2\mathrm{GeV}`$ (21)
$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_W^2}{c_W^2}}M_2\pm 1\mathrm{GeV}`$ (22)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=M_3`$ $`=`$ $`500\pm 10\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (23)
Finally, for the remaining sfermion sector we choose

$`M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}\pm 10\%`$ (24)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_1},m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_2}`$ $`=`$ $`200\pm 2\mathrm{GeV},`$ (25)
where the selectron masses enter in the vertex and box corrections. The uncertainties chosen above are consistent with those given in Refs. , see Sect. 3. The eqs. (19) and (24) reflect the assumed future measurement of the scalar bottom sector. However, the $`b/\stackrel{~}{b}`$ sector plays only a minor role here, since (as will be shown below) either $`\mu `$ or $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (or both) do not reach large values. This, however, is necessary to have large corrections from $`b/\stackrel{~}{b}`$ loops to the MSSM Higgs sector.

With the above choices, the only remaining free parameters are $`M_A`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, which we assume to be only poorly known in this scenario. Our procedure is to pick a value for $`M_A`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and check that the chosen parameters generate $`M_h=115\pm 0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$, which cuts out a slice of the $`M_A\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-plane. For the above set of parameters, we then calculate $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ and compare with the value obtained for the SM, $`\sigma _{hZ}^{\mathrm{SM}}=0.1530\mathrm{pb}`$. The resulting variations of the cross section from the SM value are shown in Fig. 2. Since the measurement of $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ is a missing mass experiment, our results are independent of the Higgs boson decay channel.

The different panels of Fig. 2 show the regions where the rate differs from the SM prediction by a specified amount. This includes a theoretical uncertainty in the SM rate which we approximate by varying $`M_h`$ within the range, $`M_h=115\pm 0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ (as described in Sect. 3). The cross section is quite sensitive to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. A measurement which differs from the SM prediction by $`1.4\%`$ or less will restrict $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <10`$. Concerning the indirect $`M_A`$ determination, a $`1.4\%`$ measurement would only be sensitive to $`M_A\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}200}\mathrm{GeV}`$. However, a measurement at the $`0.5\%`$ level, finding a deviation larger than $`0.8\%`$, can be realized only for $`M_A\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}300}\mathrm{GeV}`$. A smaller deviation from the SM value can be realized for all $`M_A`$ values with $`M_A\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}300}\mathrm{GeV}`$. Thus a weak upper bound might be established; in case of a direct observation (which will be possible for such small $`M_A`$ values), the cross section measurement can confirm the direct $`M_A`$ measurement. Interestingly, this could also happen for values where the LHC can see only the lightest MSSM Higgs boson (in the so-called “LHC wedge region”). The currently envisaged accuracy on $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ of $`23\%`$ is unfortunately not sufficient for $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ to be used as a such a precision determination.

In this scenario it is important to keep the uncertainties of the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ sector in mind, which up to now we have assumed to come partially from the LC and partially from the LHC, see eq. (17). If the more conservative assumption of LHC errors is made, the cut-out region in the $`M_A\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-plane is visibly enlarged. In particular the band is widened to larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values by about 2, depending somewhat on $`M_A`$. The obtained results from the cross section measurement for $`M_A`$ are affected in a two-fold way. The lower $`M_A`$ bound is hardly affected at all. The upper $`M_A`$ bound is weakened by $`50\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the relevant $`M_A`$ region, $`M_A300\mathrm{GeV}`$, but without spoiling the possible determination of an upper bound as explained in the previous section.

### 4.2 The gaugino scenario

To demonstrate the possible amount of information that $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ might deliver on $`\mu `$ and $`M_2`$, in this scenario we make the assumption that $`M_A`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ will have been measured,

$`M_A`$ $`=`$ $`250\pm 10\mathrm{GeV}`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ $`=`$ $`4\pm 0.5,`$ (27)
but we leave the gaugino mass parameters $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$ as free parameters (the scan stops at an upper bound of $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$). The other MSSM parameters are assumed to have the same values as in Sect. 4.1, together with their corresponding uncertainties. As in the previous section, all experimental and theoretical errors are fully taken into account.

Fig. 3 shows the dependence of $`\sigma _{hZ}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ on $`\mu `$ and $`M_2`$. It is obvious that a reasonable sensitivity only appears for $`M_2200\mathrm{GeV}`$ or $`\mu 200\mathrm{GeV}`$, where $`\sigma _{hZ}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ has a minimum. It is very unlikely that these two parameters, if they possess such a low value, will not have been measured directly, see e.g.  and references therein. Thus, in this scenario $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ can only offer complementary information which can verify the internal consistency of the MSSM (see Ref.  for detailed discussion on this subject).

## 5 Conclusions and Outlook

We have investigated whether a precise measurement of the Higgs production cross section, $`\sigma (e^+e^{}hZ)`$, offers additional information to pin down the unknown parameters of the MSSM. We have chosen two possible future scenarios. We have explained in detail what uncertainties will be present at the time of a $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ measurement and how we take them into account. This includes realistic assumptions for all mass parameters together with the expected uncertainties obtainable at the LHC and/or LC. We also took into account realistic assumptions on the theoretical uncertainties for the predictions in the MSSM Higgs sector.

We find that the total rate needs to be measured to a $`0.51\%`$ accuracy in order to be useful as a precision observable. Then additional information on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ or $`M_A`$ (if it is not too high, $`M_A\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}500}\mathrm{GeV}`$) may be obtainable. The dependence of $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ on the gaugino parameters $`\mu `$ and $`M_2`$ shows a strong enough dependence to be useful only for very low values, $`\mu ,M_2200\mathrm{GeV}`$. Hence, in this case $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ could only test the internal consistency of the MSSM.

The required precision for $`\sigma _{hZ}`$ at the 1% level, as compared to the envisaged $`23\%`$, could possibly achieved by either accumulating a higher integrated luminosity (also at different center of mass energies) and/or by taking other than the leptonic $`Z`$ decay modes into account.

### Acknowledgement

This work supported by the Department of Energy under contract DE-AC02-98CH10886.


text:
# 𝜎-meson in hot and dense matter

## 1. Introduction

In the last years, the problem of studying the scalar-isoscalar $`\sigma `$-meson properties has attracted great attention of many authors . The subjects of investigations are internal properties of the $`\sigma `$-meson and its role as an intermediate particle in various processes both in vacuum and in hot and dense matter. The latter problem is especially important, because many experiments on heavy ion collision are performed and planned (CERN, Brookhaven, DESY, Darmstadt). One of the aims of those experiments is to study the problem of phase transition of hadron matter into quark-gluon plasma. Special workshops were dedicated to the study of the $`\sigma `$-meson properties, in Japan, June 2000  and in France, September 2001 . Very interesting talks on this topic were given by T. Kunihiro . In this article, we will follow these reports.However, here we will use the results obtained only in our previous works.

Let us start with the experimental status of the $`\sigma `$-meson. The experimental value of the $`\sigma `$-meson mass is not accurately determined and lies in a wide interval:

$$M_\sigma =4001200MeV$$
(1)
It is explained by large values of the decay width of this meson into two pions111Note that for a long time the information about the $`\sigma `$\- meson was absent in PDG and only in 1998 it appeared:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =6001000MeV$$
(2)
However, at high a temperature and density $`M_\sigma `$ can become lower than the mass of two pions. Therefore, the decay $`\sigma \pi \pi `$ is closed, and the $`\sigma `$-meson becomes a stable particle. As a result, the $`\sigma `$-meson can give sharp resonance when it participates in processes as an intermediate state.

Now let us describe the theoretical status of the $`\sigma `$-meson. The $`\sigma `$-meson is a chiral partner of the $`\pi `$-meson in different linear $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ $`\sigma `$-models . On the other hand, it is a scalar-isoscalar singlet in a $`U(3)\times U(3)`$ symmetric quark model of the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio(NJL) type .

In the NJL model, the $`\sigma `$-meson mass can be expressed via the pion mass $`M_\pi `$ and the constituent quark mass $`m`$ 222We would like to notice that for a more accurate description of the mass spectra of scalar mesons it is necessary to take into account the singlet-octet mixing of scalar-isoscalar mesons with each other and with the scalar glueball .

$`M_\sigma ^2=M_\pi ^2+4m^2`$ (3)
Here we assume that the constituent masses of up and down quarks are equal to each other $`m_um_d=m`$.

Formula (3) plays a very important role for the description of different processes in hot and dense matter where the $`\sigma `$-meson participates as an intermediate particle. Indeed, from (3) it follows that in vacuum $`M_\sigma `$ is larger than $`M_\pi `$ because $`m280MeV,M_\pi 140MeV,M_\sigma 580MeV`$. A different situation occurs in hot and dense matter in the vicinity of the critical values of the temperature and chemical potential, where $`mm_00`$ and $`M_\sigma M_\pi `$. This corresponds to the restoration of the chiral symmetry. As will be shown below, this behavior of $`M_\sigma `$ can lead to the resonant enhancement of some processes where the $`\sigma `$-meson participates as an intermediate particle (for example $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$, $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$). Observation of such effects, for instance in heavy ion collisions, could indicate approaching the domain of $`T`$, $`\mu `$ values where the phase transition from hadron matter into quark-gluon plasma appears. The possibility of such a phase transition and the chiral symmetry restoration is a subject of the intensive investigation at present.

The paper is organized is follows. In the next section we demonstrate the important role of the $`\sigma `$-meson for the correct description of different processes in vacuum. In sec.3 we compare the behavior of the $`\sigma `$-meson propagator in vacuum and hot dense matter. We show that in hot and dense matter the $`\sigma `$-meson propagator can be a sharp resonance. Processes $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma `$, $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ in vacuum and hot dense matter are investigated in sec.4. Noticeable enhancement of these cross-sections near the two-pion threshold in the vicinity of the critical $`T`$, $`\mu `$ values is found. In the last section a short discussion of the results is given. Theoretical and experimental results concerning $`\pi \pi `$-scattering process in hot and dense matter are discussed.

## 2. $`\sigma `$-meson in vacuum

Before describing the $`\sigma `$-meson properties in hot and dense matter, we show a very important role of the $`\sigma `$-meson in a set of processes going in vacuum. Let us consider here some of them: $`\pi \pi `$-scattering, $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$, the rule $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$(where $`I`$ is the isospin of the meson system) in kaon decays and the calculation of the pion-nucleon $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-term in $`\pi `$-nucleon scattering. We give only a qualitative picture of these processes. Details can be found in the original works .

Let us start with $`\pi \pi `$-scattering. In the $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ chiral NJL model, this process can be described by the lagrangian333For simplicity, we do not take into account $`\pi a_1`$ transitions($`a_1`$ is the axial-vector meson) :

$`L(q,\overline{q},\sigma ,\pi )=\overline{q}(x)\left(i\widehat{}M+g\left(\sigma (x)+i\gamma ^5𝝉𝝅(x)\right)\right)q(x)`$ (4)
where $`\overline{q}(x)=(\overline{u}(x),\overline{d}(x))`$ is the quark field, $`\sigma (x)`$,$`\pi (x)`$ are the $`\sigma `$,$`\pi `$ meson fields, $`M`$ is the diagonal mass matrix of the constituent quarks, $`𝝉`$ are the Pauli matrices, $`g`$ is the quark-meson strong coupling constant

$`g=(4I_2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (5)
where $`I_2`$ is a logarithmical divergent integral that appears in the quark loop, $`I_n`$(n=1,2) in the Euclidean metric is equal to

$`I_n={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d_E^4k\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2k^2)}{(m^2+k^2)^n}}`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cut-off parameter($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.25GeV`$).

Diagrams describing $`\pi \pi `$-scattering are given in Fig.1. Then using lagrangian (4) we obtain the following expression for the amplitude $`A_{\pi \pi }`$

$`A_{\pi \pi }=4g^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(4mg)^2}{M_\sigma ^2s}}={\displaystyle \frac{sM_\pi ^2}{F_\pi ^2}},`$ (7)
where $`F_\pi =93MeV`$ is the pion weak decay constant and $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2`$, $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are the momenta of the incoming pions.

The final expression for $`A_{\pi \pi }`$ is the famous formula describing the $`\pi \pi `$-scattering amplitude at low energies. This formula was first obtained by Weinberg in the sixties years of the last century. It was one of the basic formulas demonstrating the chiral symmetry of strong interaction. The following relations were used to derive this formula:
1. The Goldberger- Treiman identity $`g=m/F_\pi `$
2. Formula for the $`\sigma `$-meson mass (3).
3. The amplitude for the decay $`\sigma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ $`A_{\sigma \pi ^+\pi ^{}}=4mg.`$
We can see from eq.(7) that the constant part of the $`\sigma `$ pole diagram cancels the contribution of the box diagram. The remaining part of the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram determines the $`s`$-dependence of the $`\pi \pi `$-scattering amplitude in agreement with the chiral symmetry requirements .

The $`\sigma `$-pole diagram plays an important role for describing the polarizability of the pion which is a significant characteristic of its electromagnetic structure. The $`\sigma `$-meson is also necessary for description of the processes $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$ and $`\gamma \pi \gamma \pi `$ in hot and dense matter . Below we will discuss the process $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$ in detail.

The famous rule $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ is connected with an experimentally observable enhancement of the decay $`K_S\pi \pi `$ as compared with kaon decays with $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$. This effect can be explained by the presence of the channel with the intermediate $`\sigma `$-meson (see Fig.2) in this process. Indeed, the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram in the process $`K_S\pi \pi `$ leads to the appearance of a resonance factor in this amplitude. This factor takes the form

$$\frac{1}{M_\sigma ^2M_{K_S}^2iM_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma }$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ is the decay width of the $`\sigma `$ meson. The kaon mass $`M_{K_S}`$ is close to the $`\sigma `$-meson mass. That gives a noticeable enhancement of this channel as compared with the channels with $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ where the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram cannot exist. Then pions are emitted directly from quark loops containing a weak vertex .

We would also like to emphasize an important role of the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram in the calculation of the pion-nucleon $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-term . The value of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-term is determined by diagrams in the Fig.3. These diagrams lead to the following expression(see )

$`\pi ^+(0)|\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d|\pi ^+(0)=4m[1+\left(I_12m^2I_2\right){\displaystyle \frac{8g^2}{M_\sigma ^2}}]`$ (9)
In this formula the first term corresponds to the triangle quark diagram (Fig.3a), and the second term corresponds to the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram (Fig.3b).

Taking into account the relations $`g=(4I_2)^{\frac{1}{2}}=m/F_\pi `$ and $`M_\sigma 2m`$, we see that the first term is cancelled by the part of the second term containing $`I_2`$. The remaining part of eq.(9) takes the form 444Here we neglect the momentum and mass of the pion and use the formula    $`I_1={\displaystyle \frac{3}{(4\pi )^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}}+1)\right)=0.025GeV^2`$

$`\pi ^+(0)|\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d|\pi ^+(0)4m\left[2I_1{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{m^2}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{I_1}{F_\pi ^2}}5.8\right]`$ (10)
It is easy to see that the contribution from the sum of diagrams 3a and 3b is $`5.8`$ times as large as the contribution from diagram 3a. As a result, in our work  for $`\pi N`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ term was obtained $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}=50\pm 10MeV`$. Notice that in , where the $`\pi `$-N $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-term was calculated in the framework of nonlinear chiral models, the authors obtained a small value for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-term because they did not take into account the contribution from the scalar $`\sigma `$-meson.

## 3. $`\sigma `$-meson propagator in vacuum and hot dense matter

Up to now we have considered the above-mentioned processes only in vacuum. Now let us study the $`\sigma `$-meson properties in hot and dense matter. It is especially interesting to investigate the behavior of the $`\sigma `$-meson propagator for the process $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$, $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (s)=\frac{1}{M_\sigma ^2siM_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (s)}$$
(11)
where $`s=(p_{\pi _1}+p_{\pi _2})^2`$, $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are the momenta of the incoming pions.The decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ in the NJL model has the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (s)=\frac{3m^4}{2\pi M_\sigma F_\pi ^2}\sqrt{1\frac{4M_\pi ^2}{s}}$$
(12)
In vacuum, when $`T=0`$ and $`\mu =0`$ and the constituent quark mass is $`m=280MeV`$, we can consider two extreme cases:

1. $`sM_\sigma ^2`$. In this case the real part of the denominator of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (s)`$ (11) is equal to zero but the imaginary part is large: $`M_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma 0.3GeV^2`$
2. $`s4M_\pi ^2`$. In this case the imaginary part of the denominator is close to zero, however its real part is large $`M_\sigma ^24M_\pi ^20.25GeV^2`$

Therefore, in vacuum the real and imaginary parts of the denominator cannot be close to zero simultaneously, and the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram cannot give a sharp resonance in the whole domain of energy.

A more interesting situation can arise in hot and dense medium. The constituent quark mass decreases and the pion mass slightly increases with increasing $`T`$ and $`\mu `$. Therefore the case that $`4m^23M_\pi ^2`$ is possible . Then, if we consider the above-mentioned processes near the two-pion threshold $`s=4M_\pi ^2(1+ϵ)`$ ($`ϵ1`$), we can see that the real and imaginary parts of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (s)`$ denominator become very small simultaneously

$`Re\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (s)^1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`M_\sigma ^2s=4m^23M_\pi ^24M_\pi ^2ϵ4M_\pi ^2ϵ`$ (13)
$`Im\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (s)^1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`M_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{3m^4}{2\pi F_\pi ^2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{1+ϵ}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3m^4}{2\pi F_\pi ^2}}\sqrt{ϵ}`$ (14)
As a result, the propagator takes the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M_\pi ^2ϵi\frac{3m^4}{2\pi F_\pi ^2}\sqrt{ϵ}}}`$ (15)
The formula shows that in hot and dense matter in the vicinity of the critical $`T`$ and $`\mu `$ values, the $`\sigma `$-meson propagator can become a sharp resonance. This leads to a noticeable enhancement of processes where the $`\sigma `$-meson participates as an intermediate particle.

In the next section we demonstrate this effect on the basis of the process $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$ following the papers .

## 4. Process $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$ in hot dense matter

To describe the processes $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ it is necessary to consider quark loop diagrams of three types (see Fig.4).

Diagram 4a exists only for charged pions. Diagrams 4a and 4b define the Born terms in a local approximation(see Fig.5). In this approximation, only divergent parts of quark diagrams are considered. As a result, the lagrangian for the photon-meson vertices

$$L^{Born}=ieA_\mu \left[\pi ^{}_\mu \pi ^+\pi ^+_\mu \pi ^{}\right]+A_\mu ^2\pi ^+\pi ^{}$$
(16)
is obtained in this approximation. In the next $`k^2`$-approximation only diagrams 4b and 4c give nontrivial contributions. The lagrangians corresponding to the vertices $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$ and $`\sigma \gamma \gamma `$ take the form

$`L^{box}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{18\pi F_\pi ^2}}\left[\pi ^+\pi ^{}+5\pi ^0\pi ^0\right]F_{\mu \nu }^2`$ (17)
$`L^{\sigma \gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5\alpha }{9\pi F_\pi }}\sigma F_{\mu \nu }^2,`$ (18)
here we use the notation $`\alpha =\frac{e^2}{4\pi }\frac{1}{137}`$($`e`$ is the e.m. charge), $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$. The lagrangian describing the vertex $`\sigma \pi \pi `$ has the form

$`L^{\sigma \pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`2mg\sigma 𝝅^2`$ (19)
These lagrangians allow us to define the total amplitude describing processes $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$555Let us note that in the Born approximation only diagrams 4a and 4b together give a gauge-invariant expression for amplitudes. In the $`k^2`$-approximation, diagrams 4b and 4c give a gauge-invariant expression separately

$`T^{\mu \nu }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{Born}^{\mu \nu }(s)+T_{k^2}^{\mu \nu }(s)`$ (20)
$`T_{Born}^{\mu \nu }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`2e^2[g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^\mu p_2^\nu }{p_1k_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_2^\mu p_1^\nu }{p_2k_1}}]`$ (21)
$`T_{k^2}^{\mu \nu }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`e^2A(s)[g^{\mu \nu }k_1k_2k_1^\mu k_2^\nu ]`$ (22)
$`A(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(6\pi F_\pi )^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{40m^2}{M_\sigma ^2siM_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma }}1\right]`$ (23)
where $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2`$, $`p_i`$ and $`k_i`$ are the momenta of the pions and photons, respectively, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ is the decay width of the $`\sigma `$-meson (see (12)).

For the process $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ the Born term is absent. The contribution of the box diagram increases 10 times.

The cross-section of the process $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma `$ consists of three parts

$`\sigma _{\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{4s\kappa }}\left[\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_2+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3\right]`$ (24)
where

$`\kappa =\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4M_\pi ^2}{s}}}`$ (25)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ corresponds to the Born term, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3`$ corresponds to contributions from the $`\sigma `$-pole and box diagrams, and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_2`$ is the interference term of the Born and $`k^2`$-approximation contributions. For the neutral pion we have only the $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3`$ term, where box the contribution is ten times larger than in the case with charge pions. Further we will consider these processes near the two-pion threshold. Variables $`s`$ and $`\kappa `$ in this domain take the form

$`s=4M_\pi ^2(1+ϵ),\kappa =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{1+ϵ}}}`$ (26)
where $`ϵ1`$. Then for $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$,$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_2`$,$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3`$ we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ $`=`$ $`16\left[2\kappa ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1\kappa ^4}{2\kappa }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\kappa }{1\kappa }}\right]`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_2`$ $`=`$ $`4sReA(s){\displaystyle \frac{1\kappa ^2}{\kappa }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\kappa }{1\kappa }}`$ (27)
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3`$ $`=`$ $`s^2|A(s)|^2`$
The $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3`$ term has the form

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3`$ $`=`$ $`\left((1+ϵ)({\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi }{3\pi F_\pi }})^2\right)^2\{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{40m^2a(s)}{a(s)^2+M_\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^2}}1\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(40m^2M_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma )^2}{\left[a(s)^2+M_\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^2\right]^2}}\}`$ (28)
where $`a(s)=M_\sigma ^2s=M_\sigma ^24M_\pi ^2(1+ϵ)`$. This expression consists of two parts. The first part contains the contributions from the box diagram and from the real part of the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram(the expression in the square brackets). The second part corresponds to the contribution from the imaginary part of the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram. Both parts have the common small factor $`\delta `$

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_\pi }{3\pi F_\pi }}\right)^4`$ (29)
Now let us compare the behavior of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3`$ in vacuum and in the a dense medium near the two-pion threshold $`s=0.1GeV^2`$. In both cases the values of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ change very little:

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_11215`$ (30)
The opposite situation takes place for $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3`$. Indeed, in vacuum we have $`ϵ=0.28`$, $`\delta =6.510^4`$ and the main part of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3`$ is defined by the contribution connected with the real part of the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{40m^2a}{a^2+M_\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^2}}\right)^284`$ (31)
We can see that the contribution from $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3`$ is very small as compared with the contribution of the Born term in this case.

A different situation can take place in hot and dense matter. Indeed, at $`T=100MeV`$ and $`\mu =290MeV`$ we have $`m=138MeV`$, $`M_\pi =156MeV`$, $`M_\sigma 317MeV`$, $`F_\pi =57MeV`$ . In this case, the imaginary part of the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram gives a dominant contribution to $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3`$. The parameter $`\delta `$ in this case equals to $`710^3`$, and the main contribution from the imaginary part has the form($`ϵ=0.02`$)

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{40m^2}{M_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma }}\right)^210^4,(aM_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma )`$ (32)
As a result, the contribution from the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram becomes comparable with the contribution from the Born term.

This effect plays an especially important role for the neutral pion. In vacuum, the cross section $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ is very small. However, in hot and dense matter the cross sections of $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ can be comparable.

After qualitative estimations, let us give more exactly the numerical calculation for the above-considered cases.

The value $`s=0.1GeV^2`$ corresponds to the energy of outgoing photons $`\omega _\gamma =160MeV`$. In vacuum ($`T=0,\mu =0`$), we have the following values for masses $`m`$, $`M_\sigma `$ and parameters $`ϵ`$, $`\kappa `$: $`m=280MeV`$, $`M_\sigma =580MeV`$, $`ϵ=0.28`$, $`\kappa =0.46`$. Using these values, we obtain for the charge pions $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_112`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_21.8`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_30.1`$. For the neutral pion we have $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_30.04`$.

The cross-sections for processes $`\sigma _{\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma }`$, $`\sigma _{\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \gamma }`$ are approximately

$`\sigma _{\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma }4.8\mu b,\sigma _{\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \gamma }0.015\mu b`$ (33)
Now let us consider these processes in hot and dense matter when $`T=100MeV`$, $`\mu =290MeV`$. Here the parameters $`ϵ`$, $`\kappa `$ are equal to $`0.02`$, $`0.14`$, respectively. The masses $`m`$, $`M_\pi `$, $`M_\sigma `$ and value of $`F_\pi `$ are given above. After substituting the parameters and masses into (27), we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_115.5,\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_22.83,\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_357.4`$ (34)
for the charge pions and

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_357.5`$ (35)
for the neutral pions. For the cross-sections $`\sigma _{\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma }`$, $`\sigma _{\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \gamma }`$ we have

$`\sigma _{\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma }75.6\mu b,\sigma _{\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \gamma }57.5\mu b`$ (36)
So, we see that in this domain of $`T`$ and $`\mu `$ near the two-pion threshold, $`\sigma _3`$ increases dramatically. As a result, the charged pions cross-section increases approximately one and a half order. The neutral pions cross-section increases more than three orders and becomes comparable with charged pions cross-section.

The cross-sections $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _1`$, $`\sigma _2`$, $`\sigma _3`$ ($`\sigma _i=\frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{4s\kappa }\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$) for process $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma `$ are plotted in Fig.6 and Fig.7 as a function of $`s`$. Fig.6 shows the numerical results for vacuum where the main contribution comes from the Born terms. The situation changes at a finite temperature and chemical potential. As is shown in Fig.7, the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram gives the dominant contribution and the cross-section is strongly increased at the threshold. The behavior of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ cross-section is shown in Fig.8 in vacuum and in hot and dense matter. It is easy to see from Fig.8 that the contribution from the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram dramatically increases near the two-pion threshold.

Here we used the approximative expression for the amplitudes where the $`T`$ and $`\mu `$ dependence of quark loops was neglected. A more careful calculation was made in works.

## 5. Discussion and conclusion

We have shown that the scalar $`\sigma `$-meson plays an important role in low-energy meson physics. The $`\sigma `$-pole diagram gives the main contribution to the $`\pi \pi `$-scattering amplitude and ensures its chiral invariance. The intermediate $`\sigma `$-meson gives a dominant contribution to charge pion polarizability in the process $`\gamma \pi \gamma \pi `$ . Using the $`\sigma `$-pole diagram, we can explain the rule $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ in kaon decays. The diagram with the $`\sigma `$-meson determines the value of the pion-nucleon $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-term. It is not a complete list of significant physical results where taking the $`\sigma `$-meson into account allows us to correctly describe hadron properties in vacuum666It is worth noticing that to describe the decay $`\eta \pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ in agreement with experiment it is also necessary to take into account the channel with the intermediate scalar-isovector meson $`a_0`$(980) .

However, the behavior of the $`\sigma `$-meson is especially interesting in a hot and dense medium. Here the $`\sigma `$-meson can become a sharp resonance in the vicinity of the critical values of $`T`$ and $`\mu `$. This situation leads to a strong increase of the processes where the $`\sigma `$-meson participates as an intermediate particle. In this work, we have demonstrated this effect on the basis of the process $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$ (see ). Similar results were obtained in works . An analogous situation can also occur in the $`\pi \pi `$-scattering process.

The spectral function of a $`\pi \pi `$-system in the $`\sigma `$-channel has been studied for finite densities in . Characteristic enhancement of the spectral function near the two-pion threshold is found. This effect is close to our results obtained for the process $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$ (see sec.4).

In work , T. Kunihiro pointed the first experimental support of his theoretical results. The CHAOS collaboration studied the differential cross-sections $`M_{\pi \pi }^A=d\sigma ^A/dM_{\pi \pi }`$ for the $`\pi A\pi ^+\pi ^\pm A^{}`$ reaction on nuclei $`A=2,12,40,208`$. The observable composite ratio

$$C_{\pi \pi }^A=\frac{M_{\pi \pi }^A\sigma _{tot}^N}{M_{\pi \pi }^N\sigma _{tot}^A}$$
(37)
was chosen to disentangle the acceptance issue and because it is slightly dependent on the reaction mechanism and nuclear distortion (here $`\sigma _{tot}^N`$ and $`\sigma _{tot}^A`$ are the total cross-sections). It was found out that the $`C_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}^A`$ distribution peak at the $`2m_\pi `$ threshold and their yield increase with A. At the same time, the $`C_{\pi ^+\pi ^+}^A`$ distribution weakly depends on A. This means that nuclear matter weakly affects the $`(\pi \pi )_{I,J=2,0}`$ interactions, whereas the $`(\pi \pi )_{I=J=0}`$ state forms a strongly interacting system (the intermediate $`\sigma `$-meson). The experimental results were compared with some theoretical models, and the best agreement was found with the models that take into account the medium modifications of the scalar-isoscalar $`\sigma `$-meson and the partial restoration of chiral symmetry in nuclear matter.

The Crystal Ball(CB) collaboration  studied the reaction $`\pi ^{}A\pi ^0\pi ^0A^{}`$ on $`H`$, $`D`$, $`C`$, $`Al`$, $`Cu`$. They reported that there was no peak near the $`2m_\pi `$ threshold, observed by CHAOS collaboration, but the increase in strength as a function of A was also observed in the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ system. Later, the CB results were reanalyzed  in terms of the composite ratio (37) and accounting for different acceptances of two experiments. It was shown that as far as the $`(\pi \pi )_{I=J=0}`$ interacting system is concerned, the results agree with each other very well. This agreement may be interpreted as an independent confirmation by the CB experiment of the modification of the $`\sigma `$-meson properties in nuclear matter, first reported by CHAOS.

The above-described experimental data for $`\pi \pi `$-scattering allow us to hope that similar results can be experimentally obtained for the processes $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$ in hot and dense matter. It is especially interesting to study $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$, because the cross-section of this process can increase by several orders of magnitude near the two-pion threshold. Experimental observation of all these effects will be evidence for approaching the boundary of the domain where the partial restoration of chiral symmetry and the phase transition of hadron matter into quark-gluon plasma take place.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

MKV thanks D. Blaschke, E.A. Kuraev, G. Röpke, S. Schmidt for fruitful discussion and collaboration. MKV acknowledge support by RFBR(grant no.02-02-16194) and Heisenberg-Landau program. AER acknowledge support by UNESCO.

## Figure captions

1. The quark diagrams describing the $`\pi \pi `$-scattering. All loops in Fig.1-Fig.4 consist of constituent quarks.
2. The diagram describing the $`K_S\pi \pi `$ decay with $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$. The dot is a weak vertex.
3. The quark diagrams describing the matrix element $`\pi ^+(0)|\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d|\pi ^+(0)`$. The left vertices are scalar quark vertices interacting with a nucleon.
4. The quark diagrams describing the matrix element $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$.
5. The quark diagrams in the Born approximation describing the matrix element $`\pi \pi \gamma \gamma `$.
6. The total cross-section $`\sigma `$(thick solid line) for process $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma `$ and partial cross-sections $`\sigma _1`$(long-dashed line),$`\sigma _2`$(thin solid line),$`\sigma _3`$(short-dashed line) in vacuum.
7. The total cross-section $`\sigma `$(thick solid line) for process $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma \gamma `$ and partial cross-sections $`\sigma _1`$(long-dashed line),$`\sigma _2`$(thin solid line),$`\sigma _3`$(short-dashed line) in hot and dense matter at $`T=100MeV`$, $`\mu =290MeV`$.
8. The cross-section for process $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ in vacuum(dashed line) and in hot and dense matter $`T=100MeV`$, $`\mu =290MeV`$(solid line).

## Figures


text:
# LTH 535 Cost of dynamical quark simulations: O(𝑎) improved Wilson fermionsContribution to panel discussion at “Lattice 2001”, Berlin

## 1 RESULTS FROM UKQCD & QCDSF

Run parameters for the UKQCD and QCDSF simulations are listed in Table I of  and Table 2 of , respectively. Additional runs, which are included here, have since been performed, and their details will be published elsewhere.

Integrated autocorrelation times, $`\tau ^{\mathrm{int}}`$, for hadron masses, are poorly known. One therefore relies on $`\tau ^{\mathrm{int}}`$ estimated from the average plaquette, which shows an unexpected slight decrease for smaller quark masses (see Table II of ). Given the poor understanding of autocorrelation times, UKQCD have chosen a constant separation of 40 HMC trajectories between “independent” configurations for all data sets. Thus, any scaling of $`\tau ^{\mathrm{int}}`$ with the quark mass (or, equivalently, $`am_\mathrm{P}`$) has not been folded into the cost analysis.

The number of operations per independent configuration is modelled according to

$$\frac{N_{\mathrm{ops}}}{\text{ind. cfg.}}=C\left(\frac{L}{a}\right)^{z_1}\left(\frac{1}{am_\mathrm{P}}\right)^{z_2}.$$
(1)
The available run data on $`L/a=24`$ provided by QCDSF are as yet not sufficient to constrain the $`L/a`$ dependence well enough, and hence we have used $`L/a=16`$ only, setting the coefficient $`z_1`$ equal to the value quoted in ref. , i.e. $`z_1=4.55`$. The performance observed by QCDSF on $`L/a=24`$ is consistent with this value.

Fits to the prefactor $`C`$ and $`z_2`$ in eq. (1) were performed to the UKQCD subset of the data. Update times were converted into $`N_{\mathrm{ops}}`$ using the CRAY T3E’s sustained speed of 275 Mflops per processor (32bit and assembler). This yields

$$C=0.31(7)\text{Gflop},z_2=2.77(40),$$
(2)
where the errors have been estimated by fitting different subsets of data points. The corresponding curves are shown in Fig. 1. The estimate for $`z_2`$ agrees with the value quoted in , whereas the prefactor $`C`$ in eq. (2) is roughly 10 times larger. The reason for this is so far unknown.

In order to estimate the CPU effort required to repeat the quenched benchmark for the light hadron spectrum , we assume that the smallest lattice spacing and quark mass each account for 50% of the total. Furthermore, using O($`a`$) improvement implies that one can use larger lattice spacings without compromising the continuum extrapolations. The following estimates are based on 400 configurations on a smallest lattice spacing of $`a=0.07\mathrm{fm}`$, with $`L/a=48`$, and a minimum pion mass of $`am_\mathrm{P}^{\mathrm{min}}`$, corresponding to a dynamical quark mass $`m_\mathrm{q}`$:

| $`am_\mathrm{P}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ | \[Tflops years\] | $`m_\mathrm{q}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 0.17 | $`95`$ | $`m_\mathrm{s}/2`$ |
| 0.12 | 250 | $`m_\mathrm{s}/4`$ |
| 0.09 | 550 | $`m_\mathrm{s}/8`$ |

## 2 RESULTS FROM ALPHA

ALPHA simulate massless quarks on small volumes with SF boundary conditions. The box size $`L`$ is thus the only scale in the problem. In particular, the condition number of the fermion matrix is determined by $`L`$, which implies that the rôle of $`1/am_\mathrm{P}`$ in eq. (1) is taken over by $`L/a`$. The appropriate cost formula for the SF is therefore

$$N_{\mathrm{ops}}/\text{ind.\hspace{0.17em}cfg.}=C^{}\left(L/a\right)^z.$$
(3)
A detailed algorithmic study, including a cost analysis, has been published in . ALPHA were able to extract precise autocorrelation data for the relevant observable, i.e. the running coupling in the SF scheme $`\overline{g}_{\mathrm{SF}}(L)`$. For $`\overline{g}_{\mathrm{SF}}^21`$ one finds that $`\tau ^{\mathrm{int}}2`$ trajectories with a relative error of 5–10%.

ALPHA have used an alternative measure of the cost of their simulations. The quantity $`M_{\mathrm{cost}}`$ defined in eq. (3.1) of  is expected to differ from eq. (3) by an overall factor $`(L/a)^3`$. Fig. 2, taken from , shows a plot of $`M_{\mathrm{cost}}`$ versus $`L/a`$ for $`\overline{g}_{\mathrm{SF}}^2(L)1`$. It suggests a scaling of $`M_{\mathrm{cost}}(L/a)^3`$ (dashed line in Fig. 2), which implies $`z6`$ in eq. (3).

The benchmark for ALPHA is the determination of the running of $`\alpha _s`$ and the extraction of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-parameter. The results of  imply that lattice sizes of $`L/a=1620`$ should be sufficient to determine the step scaling function $`\sigma `$ for $`N_\mathrm{f}=2`$ flavours with similar accuracy as in . The total CPU effort is estimated to be of the order of 0.1 Tflops years, which is within reach on machines like APE1000. This estimate does not, however, include the computation of a low-energy scale such as $`f_\pi `$ for $`N_\mathrm{f}=2`$, which is necessary to express $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in physical units.

Acknowledgements I thank Alan Irving, Karl Jansen, Dirk Pleiter and Rainer Sommer for their help in preparing this contribution.


text:
# RR Lyrae Stars and Anomalous Cepheids in the Draco Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy

## 1. Introduction

The Draco dwarf spheriodal galaxy was first extensively studied by Baade & Swope (1961), who identified 260 variable stars in their survey, determining periods and photographic B light curves of 138 variables. Goranskij (1982) and Nemec (1985) reanalyzed the Baade & Swope observations, finding 10 double-mode RR Lyraes (RRd). In this current survey of Draco, we present our photometric results of 268 RR Lyraes and 8 anomalous Cepheids.

The Draco dwarf spheroidal galaxy is a metal poor system with an $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]`$ $`2.0`$ (Mateo, 1998). Draco has a well populated red horizontal branch (HB). However, compared to a metal poor globular cluster such as M15, Draco has a sparsely populated blue horizontal branch.

## 2. Observations and reduction

The data were obtained from two sources: the 1.0m telescope at the United States Naval Observatory (USNO) - Flagstaff station and the 2.3m telescope at the Wyoming Infrared Observatory (WIRO). The observations spanned over two years, from June 1993 to July 1995. There were between 40 to 60 observations in $`V`$ and $`I`$.

The images were reduced using the standard IRAF CCD reduction packages while the photometry was done with the stand alone versions of DAOPHOT II and ALLFRAME (Stetson, 1987, 1994). To find the periods, two methods were utilized: a date compensated discrete Fourier transform supplemented by phase dispersion minimization (Stellingwerf, 1978).

## 3. Results

We have increased the number of RRd stars from the original 10 to at least 26. Prior to this work, five anomalous Cepheids were known to be in the Draco dwarf galaxy, and to this number we have added three more.

In the period-magnitude diagram, Fig. 1, a clear separation between the ab and cd type RR Lyraes is shown. Nemec (1988) proposed that two period-luminosity (P-L) relationships exist depending on the pulsational mode (fundamental or first overtone) of anomalous Cepheids for five dwarf spheroidal galaxies. Three of the newly discovered anomalous Cepheids of Draco fall close to Nemec’s fundamental mode P-L relation, but it is not clear if the Draco Cepheids fall along two distinct P-L relations.

A period-amplitude diagram for Draco RR Lyraes is presented in Figure 2. Here we have overlaid the Oosterhoff I (M3) and Oosterhoff II ($`\omega `$ Centauri) trend lines for RRab stars (Clement & Rowe, 2000). The Draco RRab stars appear to mostly fall along or are close to the Oosterhoff I line. In comparison, galactic globular clusters that are more metal poor than \[Fe/H\] = -1.7 are classified as Oosterhoff II.

Lee et al. (1990) provide a plausible explanation for this contradiction in Oosterhoff classification in Draco. RR Lyraes in Oosterhoff II globular clusters are originally on the blue horizontal branch and evolve away from their zero-age horizontal branch positions. As they evolve, the stars become brighter and redder. According to Ritter’s relation, as the star gets brighter, the period becomes longer. Since Draco has a sparsely populated blue horizontal branch, this is not the best description for this system. If the Draco RRab stars are not as evolved as those in a metal poor globular cluster, then these stars are fainter, have shorter periods, and hence fall closer to the Oosterhoff I trend line.

However, the RRc and RRd stars of Draco have periods similar to those found in Oosterhoff II globular clusters. Only one RRd star was found to be similar to Oosterhoff I globular cluster RRd stars. Some c-type RR Lyraes are also like Oosterhoff I stars, but a majority of them are Oosterhoff II. Detailed modeling for different evolutionary scenarios is needed to see how difficult it is to explain the different Oosterhoff properties of RRab and RRcd stars.

## 4. Future work

In this paper we presented our results from $`V`$ band photometry only. $`V`$ and $`I`$ colors are being determined. We will also be investigating the prevalence of the Blazhko effect among the RR Lyraes in Draco and the radial distributions of the variable stars.

### Acknowledgments.

This work has been supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grants AST-9528080 and AST-9986943. L.A. Snyder was partially supported by the NSF REU grant 991221.

## References

Baade, W. & Swope, H. 1961, AJ, 66, 300

Clement, C. & Rowe, J. 2000, AJ, 120, 2579

Goranskij, V. P. 1982, Astronomicheskij Tsirkulyar, 1216, 5

Grillmair, C. J. et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 144

Lee, Y. W., Demarque, P. & Zinn, R. 1990, ApJ, 350, 155

Mateo, M. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 435

Nemec, J. 1985, AJ, 90, 204

Nemec, J., Mendes de Oliveira, C., & Wehlau, A. 1988, in ASP Conf. Ser, Vol. 4, The Extragalactic Distance Scale, eds. S. van den Bergh & C. Pritchet, (San Francisco ASP), 180

Stellingwerf, R. F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 953

Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191

Stetson, P. B. 1994, PASP, 106, 250

## Discussion

D. Laney : Could the peculiar distribution of RR Lyrae stars with respect to Oosterhoff I and II be explained by an age distribution different from that found in typical Oosterhoff I and II globular clusters?
K. Kinemuchi : Grillmair et al. (1998) discuss a lack of multiple main sequence turnoffs; thus no multiple star formation episodes. From their analysis, there is no large age distribution in Draco.
G. Kovács : The P-A diagram may not necessarily be the best way to estimate cluster metallicity. For RRab stars, there is a much better correlation with P and $`\varphi _{31}`$. Also, amplitudes might be affected in the case of crowded field photometry. Concerning the latter effect, do you have an estimation on the severity of crowding in the case of your data set?
K. Kinemuchi : Draco is not a very compact object, so crowding does not usually become an issue. We do have problems with near neighbors, but almost all of that is taken care of with our photometry programs. We have not yet looked into the $`\varphi _{31}`$ values of our RRab light curves.