text:
# Purely Four-dimensional Viable Anomaly Mediation

## I Introduction

The absence of superpartners with masses degenerate to those of the Standard Model particles assures us that supersymmetry (SUSY) is broken if it is present in nature. However, arbitrary patterns of supersymmetry breaking masses give flavor-changing neutral current rates in gross violation of current experimental bounds. This is known as the SUSY flavor problem.

Anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking RS ; GLMR  represents an attractive solution to this problem. In anomaly mediation, the breaking of scale invariance mediates supersymmetry breaking between the visible and the hidden sectors. (For an expanded review of this point, see DRED ). As a result, the supersymmetry breaking terms can be written entirely in terms of beta functions and anomalous dimensions at any given energy. This means that the SUSY breaking terms are independent of any flavor-dependent physics that might occur at high scales. This is the anomaly-mediated solution to the SUSY flavor problem. While the anomaly-mediated contribution to supersymmetry breaking is always present, its effect can be sub-dominant. For the anomaly mediation to solve the SUSY flavor problem, other contributions to supersymmetry breaking must be somehow suppressed. In its original incarnation, this suppression was accomplished through a spatial separation of the visible and hidden sectors in an extra-dimension, which was thought to have the effect of “sequestering” the hidden sector RS .

The theory of anomaly mediation as described above suffers from two difficulties. First, as was shown in detail in Dine , the geometric separation of the visible and hidden sectors is insufficient to sequester the hidden sector. In fact in most cases, the exchange of fields in the bulk supergravity multiplet is sufficient to generate a contribution to universal scalar masses at the tree level, completely swamping the anomaly-mediated piece. Perhaps the simplest counter-example to geometric sequestering appeared in the model of radion-mediated supersymmetry breaking Chacko:2000fn . The second problem facing anomaly mediation is a direct result of its ultraviolet (UV) insensitivity. This property renders anomaly mediation an extremely predictive framework, considered to be a desirable feature. However, one prediction is a negative mass squared for the sleptons, rendering the theory phenomenologically inviable.

Neither of the above problems are insurmountable. In LutySundrum1 ; LutySundrum2 , it was shown that the sequestering could take place in a completely four dimensional framework where the problem of bulk moduli is absent, using conformal field theories. In this case, the sequestering remains effective as long as there are no moduli coupled to both the hidden and the MSSM sectors. This four dimensional solution is reviewed in Section II. The problem of tachyonic sleptons has also been overcome RS ; nondecoupling ; KSS ; JackJones ; ViableUV . However, no explicit model exists that both effectively sequesters the supersymmetry breaking sector and provides a phenomenologically viable spectrum. In this paper we provide the first such model, a viable model of anomaly mediation in four dimensions.

To provide the masses for the sleptons, we select the mechanism of JackJones ; ViableUV , which gives masses through the addition of $`D`$-terms. We find this mechanism particularly attractive, as it gives masses without sacrificing the property of UV insensitivity. We review this mechanism in Section III, before moving on and presenting our model in Section IV.

## II 4D Anomaly Mediation

The concerns about geometric sequestering raised in Dine  can be addressed by utilizing the framework of Luty and Sundrum LutySundrum1 ; LutySundrum2 , in which the sequestering of anomaly mediation is realized in a completely four-dimensional way. This framework is inspired by the AdS/CFT correspondence adscft  which conjectures that a 5D theory of gravity in anti-deSitter space is dual to a four dimensional conformal field theory. One can hope that this duality can be stretched further to a duality between the five dimensional brane world scenario and a four dimensional conformal field theory. With this in mind we can expect that the sequestering attempted in RS  with an extra dimension might be realized in a 4D model in which the hidden sector is conformal. Luty and Sundrum showed this is indeed the case by looking at 4D theory with the hidden sector being SUSY QCD with $`\frac{3}{2}N_cN_f3N_c`$ (*i.e.* the theory is in the Seiberg conformal window Seiberg ).

The main goal of sequestering is to suppress flavor violating operators of the form

$$d^4\theta \frac{c_j^i}{M_{}^2}T_J^{}T^JQ_i^{}Q^j$$
(1)
that might lead to large flavor-changing effects. Here $`T^J`$ are fields in the (conformal) hidden sector, $`Q^i`$ are fields in the visible sector, and $`M_{}`$ can be the reduced Planck scale. It is convenient to treat such a term as a correction to the hidden sector UV Kähler potential

$$_{hid}d^4\theta 𝒵_0T_J^{}T^J,𝒵_0=1+\frac{c_j^i}{M_{}^2}Q_i^{}Q^j.$$
(2)
Below a certain energy, the gauge coupling, $`g`$, of the hidden sector nears its fixed point value, $`g_{}`$, allowing us to keep only the leading order in $`(g^2g_{}^2)`$ in the renormalization group equations for the coupling and the wavefunction renormalization. Defining $`\gamma \mathrm{log}Z/\mathrm{log}\mu `$, the expansion yields:

$$\beta =\beta _{}^{}(g^2g_{}^2),\gamma =\gamma _{}+\gamma _{}^{}(g^2g_{}^2),$$
(3)
where $`\beta _{}^{}`$ and $`\gamma _{}^{}`$ are positive critical exponents, due to the fact that they describe dynamics near an infrared fixed point. For simplicity we will assume Eq. (3) is valid already at $`M_{}`$; this assumption will not change the final result of sequestering. The conformal symmetry will eventually be broken by one of the fields in the hidden sector getting a vacuum expectation value (VEV), $`X`$, away from the origin of the moduli space.

Now, we can proceed to demonstrate the sequestering. If at the scale $`M_{}`$, we were already at the fixed point, $`g=g_{}`$, integrating Eq. (3) would give

$$𝒵(\mu )=\left(\frac{\mu }{M_{}}\right)^\gamma _{}.$$
(4)
When considering small perturbations about the fixed point, $`\mathrm{\Delta }g^2=g^2g_{}^2`$, it is convenient to factor out the above fixed point running by defining

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\text{ln}𝒵=\text{ln}𝒵\gamma _{}\text{ln}\left(\frac{\mu }{M_{}}\right).$$
(5)
After integrating Eq. (3) down to the scale of conformal symmetry breaking, $`X`$, we find that the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{ln}𝒵(\mu )`$ on $`𝒵_0`$ is highly suppressed. This is simply a restatement of the fact that until the symmetry is broken, the theory is nearly conformal, so that deformations introduced at the high scale quickly become irrelevant as the theory is driven toward its fixed point.

In particular, if we make the choice that the value of the holomorphic gauge coupling 111This is the gauge coupling whose running is exhausted at one loop NSVZ , and is related to the canonical gauge coupling by $`1/g_{can}^2=Re(1/g_{hol}^2)F\text{ln}Z/8\pi ^2N\text{ln}g_{can}^2/8\pi ^2`$ in the NSVZ scheme. at the Planck scale is equal to its value at the fixed point, which can be done without a loss of generality, we can write:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}𝒵(X)=\left(\frac{X}{M_{}}\right)^\beta _{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}𝒵_0.$$
(6)
The flavor violating operators in Eq. (1) are therefore power suppressed and the hidden sector is sequestered. For details of this derivation, see References LutySundrum1 ; LutySundrum2 .

In LutySundrum2  a model of a conformally sequestered hidden sector is achieved completely naturally, generating all hierarchies dynamically. In the sections that follow, we will assume that the hidden sector is sequestered by this mechanism, leaving anomaly mediation as the leading contribution to visible sector soft masses.

## III Viable Anomaly Mediation

For anomaly mediation to be viable, the tachyonic sleptons must be eliminated. This may be accomplished by adding $`D`$-terms for $`BL`$ and hypercharge. In Reference ViableUV  the generation of a $`D`$-term for $`U(1)_{BL}`$ is accomplished by appealing to an extra-dimensional framework. We have already mentioned that the extra-dimensional framework is problematic as a realization of anomaly mediation, so we will have to modify this mechanism, which we do in Section IV.

The extra-dimensional set-up of ViableUV  contains three branes: a visible sector, a sequestered sector, and a sector responsible for the breaking of $`U(1)_{BL}`$. The $`U(1)_{BL}`$ gauge field is allowed to propagate in the bulk, but is broken at a high scale unlike in the gaugino-mediation models gaugino . We now review the process by which the $`U(1)_{BL}`$ breaking sector provides a $`D`$-term. The $`U(1)_{BL}`$ consists of the superpotential

$$𝒲=\lambda X(\varphi \overline{\varphi }\mathrm{\Lambda }^2).$$
(7)
Here, the $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$ fields have $`U(1)_{BL}`$ charge $`+1`$ and $`1`$, respectively, while $`X`$ is $`U(1)_{BL}`$ neutral. In the supersymmetric limit, $`\varphi =\overline{\varphi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. As long as $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$ have different soft supersymmetry breaking masses, perhaps from additional Yukawa couplings not shown in Eq. (7), their VEVs will shift by different amounts after the effects of supersymmetry breaking are included HMLowEnergy . The $`D`$-term is found to be proportional to the difference in the VEVs, so

$$D_{BL}\varphi ^2\overline{\varphi }^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2\stackrel{~}{\overline{m}}^2.$$
(8)
Generically, the $`D`$-term will be of the same order of the soft masses-squared, which is the necessary condition for a viable spectrum. The $`D`$-term contributes to the scalar masses-squared for all fields charged under the relevant symmetry, in this case, $`BL`$.

The unique feature of this solution to the problem of tachyonic sleptons is its insensitivity to physics in the ultraviolet. More precisely, the new expressions for the soft masses:

$$\stackrel{~}{m^{}}_i^2\stackrel{~}{m}_i^2q_iD,$$
(9)
remain on renormalization group trajectories. This can be shown by either explicitly examining the form of the renormalization group equations JackJones , or by a spurion argument ViableUV . The spurion argument also shows clearly that soft parameters remain on RGE trajectories even as heavy particle thresholds are crossed.

As mentioned above, $`D`$-terms for both $`U(1)_{BL}`$ and $`U(1)_Y`$ are needed to generate a viable spectrum JackJones . However, once a $`D`$-term for $`U(1)_{BL}`$ is generated, a $`D`$-term for $`U(1)_Y`$ is naturally generated by including a term for kinetic mixing in the Lagrangian, $`d^2\theta 𝒲_{BL}𝒲_Y`$. Therefore, it is sufficient to consider a mechanism to generate $`D_{BL}`$.

The “anomaly mediation plus $`D`$-terms” scenario above was originally envisaged in an extra-dimensional framework. If we transport this scenario to a four-dimensional one, we require that the scale of the $`U(1)_{BL}`$ breaking be much less than the Planck scale. Otherwise, it is possible to generate phenomenologically dangerous contributions to the soft masses of the MSSM field. To be concrete, consider the lepton doublet, $`L`$. Operators in the Kähler potential of the form

$$\frac{(\varphi L)^{}e^{qV}(\varphi L)}{M_{}^2},$$
(10)
will generate soft masses for the sleptons once the VEV for the $`D`$-term is substituted for $`V`$. A key point is that $`q`$ generically will not be equal to the charge of the $`L`$ field. These contributions will take the masses off of the anomaly-mediated trajectory, and spoil the UV insensitivity. These operators could arise from integrating out heavy particles charged under the $`U(1)_{BL}`$ symmetry, whose masses are at the Planck scale 222Alternatively, these could simply be additional fields charged under the $`U(1)`$ symmetry whose Yukawa couplings to $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$ give those fields different soft masses.. Therefore, a requirement for a viable four dimensional model is that we dynamically generate the scale of the $`U(1)_{BL}`$ breaking. We present such a model in the next section.

## IV The Model

Our goal, then, is to produce a model that naturally generates a $`D`$-term of the correct scale without introducing operators that spoil the UV-insensitivity. Looking at Sections II and III, it is clear what we need to do. Again, we will have three sectors: a visible sector containing the MSSM, a nearly conformal hidden sector, and a $`U(1)_{BL}`$ breaking sector. The nearly conformal sector can be neatly lifted from Reference LutySundrum2 . Our task is to generate a superpotential similar to that in Eq. (7) dynamically. This will generate the $`D`$-terms, allowing for a phenomenologically viable spectrum.

The sector that we use to break the $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry and produce the $`D`$-term is given in Table 1. It is a theory with a “strong” $`Sp(2)`$ gauge group and 3 flavors, corresponding to 6 fundamentals, which we denote by $`Q`$. The theory exhibits an $`SU(6)`$ flavor symmetry. We gauge the $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ subgroup of the flavor symmetry, and this $`U(1)`$ is the $`U(1)_{BL}`$ that develops a $`D`$-term 333A similar attempt using $`Sp(1)`$ with 2 flavors runs into the difficulty that the mesons have identical charges under the $`SU(3)\times U(1)SU(4)`$ flavor symmetry, so it is not entirely clear that a $`D`$-term is generated.. To cancel the anomalies for the $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ symmetry, we introduce four copies of anti-flavors $`\overline{Q}`$ transforming as a $`\overline{4}`$ under a flavor $`SU(4)_g`$ global symmetry but not charged under the strong $`Sp(2)`$ gauge group.

The superpotential of the model is

$$W=\frac{1}{M_{}}(Q^iQ^j)\overline{Q}_i\overline{Q}_j+\frac{1}{M_{}^3}Q^6+\frac{1}{M_{}^3}\overline{Q}^6,$$
(11)
which is the most general superpotential up to order $`1/M_{}^3`$ consistent with the symmetries described above. The indices run from 1 to 6 over all three flavors. However, the terms do not have to be fully $`SU(6)`$ symmetric, but symmetric only under $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$, i.e. different coefficients for independent invariants are allowed in the last two terms.

The dynamics of the $`Sp(2)`$ gauge group leads to the quantum modified constraint IP

$$\mathrm{Pf}M=\mathrm{\Lambda }^6,$$
(12)
where the meson is made of quarks $`M^{ij}=Q^iQ^j`$. Because the quarks are in $`(4,1)_1+(1,2)_2`$ representations, the mesons transform as $`(6,1)_2+(4,2)_1+(1,1)_4`$. The quantum modified constraint can be satisfied consistently with vanishing $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ $`D`$-terms with

$$M_{(6,1)_2}=(\sqrt{2}V^2,0,0,0,0,0),M_{(1,1)_4}=V^2,$$
(13)
where $`V^6=\mathrm{\Lambda }^6`$. The first meson VEV breaks $`SU(4)`$ to $`Sp(2)`$ (or equivalently $`SO(6)`$ to $`SO(5)`$), and both of them break $`U(1)`$. Most of the mesons in the $`(6,1)_2+(1,1)_4`$ representations are eaten by the broken gauge multiplets, and one of them is eliminated due to the quantum modified constraint. The $`(4,2)_1`$ mesons do not acquire mass because of the “accidental” $`SU(6)`$ symmetry in $`Sp(2)`$ dynamics and are pseudo-Nambu–Goldstone fields. The second term in Eq. (11) then breaks the “accidental” $`SU(6)`$ and gives the $`(4,2)_1`$ mesons masses of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4/M_{}^3`$. On the other hand, the first term in Eq. (11) gives mass of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M_{}`$ to all of the anti-flavors. As a result, all fields that we have introduced acquire supersymmetric masses. There are no new light fields in our model.

We claim that, in the presence of soft supersymmetry breaking induced by anomaly mediation, this model develops a $`D`$-term for the $`U(1)`$.

Unfortunately, this model is incalculable because the mesons become composite and condense at the same scale, and we do not know if the description in terms of meson degrees of freedom is appropriate to work out the soft supersymmetry breaking effects. Of course, once the dynamical degrees of freedom are identified, anomaly mediation gives a unique prediction for their soft parameters. However, we do not know if mesons can be regarded as dynamical degrees of freedom or composite order parameters at this stage.

We make this model calculable, in the same spirit as in HMSO10 , by deforming the theory while remaining in the same universality class. The model becomes calculable if two energy scales are separated: the scale where mesons become composite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the scale where $`U(1)`$ is broken $`V`$. We identify two deformations which achieve $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$. We will find that a $`D`$-term of the correct order of magnitude is successfully generated in either case. We view this as compelling evidence for the generation of a $`D`$-term when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$, which is the actual situation in the model we have presented.

### IV.1 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$

The first limit, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$, is achieved by introducing an additional flavor, $`Q_7,Q_8`$. No corresponding anti-flavor is necessary as the additional flavor is not charged under any gauge group except the strong $`Sp(2)`$. The extra flavor is massive. When its mass $`m\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we can integrate out the extra flavor first, and the theory goes back to the original model. On the other hand, by taking $`m\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the $`Sp(2)`$ dynamics changes at the dynamical scale. The theory has 4 flavors and hence confines with a dynamical superpotential IP . Together with the mass term,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }W=m^{78}+\frac{\text{Pf}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^5}.$$
(14)
The meson $``$ includes the 4th flavor, while we keep the notation $`M`$ for the first three flavors. Below the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the confined mesons are dynamical degrees of freedom, as suggested by the non-trivial anomaly matching conditions.

At the scale $`V=(m\mathrm{\Lambda }^5)^{1/6}`$, we solve for $`^{78}`$ and find

$$\text{Pf}M=m\mathrm{\Lambda }^5=V^6.$$
(15)
which sets $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$ because $`m\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The mesons acquire expectation values in the same fashion as in Eq. (13), breaking $`U(1)`$ and $`SU(4)Sp(2)`$.

The superpotential of Eq. (11) becomes Yukawa couplings among mesons and anti-flavor quarks

$$W=\frac{1}{M_{}}M^{ij}\overline{Q}_i\overline{Q}_j+\frac{1}{M_{}^3}M^3.$$
(16)
Once mesons acquire VEVs, the first term gives the anti-flavors masses, and the second term gives masses to the $`(4,2)_1`$ mesons. The size of Yukawa couplings can be seen by scaling the meson fields to canonical normalization $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{M}`$ up to unknown $`O(1)`$ constants.

The main point of this deformation is that physics between the compositeness scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the $`U(1)`$-breaking scale, $`V`$, is given in terms of composite mesons and their soft supersymmetry breaking can be obtained by the standard formulae of anomaly mediation. Yukawa couplings from the non-renormalizable superpotential are suppressed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/M_{}`$ and we ignore them. Then the only contribution to their soft masses come from $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge interactions. The relevant soft masses for the mesons are determined by the expression $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2=(\dot{\gamma }/4)|m_{3/2}|^2`$, where $`\gamma (\mathrm{log}Z/\mathrm{log}\mu )`$. Calculating in the gauge theory, we find:

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{(6,1)_2}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|m_{3/2}|^2}{(16\pi ^2)^2}}(20g_4^4384g_1^4),`$ (17)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{(1,1)_4}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|m_{3/2}|^2}{(16\pi ^2)^2}}(1536g_1^4).`$ (18)
In the presence of soft terms, we have to re-minimize the potential obtained from the superpotential Eq. (14). The vacuum configuration for the new potential shifts slightly from that in Eq. (13). And the $`D`$-term, which is given in terms of the shifts in the meson VEVs, can be given by:

$$D=8g_1(\delta M_{(6,1)_2}\delta M_{(1,1)_4})=\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{(1,1)_4}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{(6,1)_2}^2}{6g_1}.$$
(19)
As an aside, we note that the potentially large $`A`$-terms that result from inserting powers of the chiral compensator in Eq. (14), do not contribute to the $`D`$-term. We have checked that this is the case using the methods of HMLowEnergy . Now, substituting in the expressions of Eqs. (17) and (18), the final value for the $`D`$-term in this case are given by:

$$D=\frac{|m_{3/2}|^2}{(16\pi ^2)^2}\frac{192g_1^4+\frac{10}{3}g_4^4}{g_1},$$
(20)
so a $`D`$-term of the correct order of magnitude is successfully generated in this limit.

### IV.2 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$

The second limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$ is achieved by introducing an additional flavor, $`Q_7,Q_8`$, and extending the strong gauge group to $`Sp(3)`$. Because we are extending the gauge group to $`Sp(3)`$, now six copies of the anti-flavors are necessary. We assign the extra fourth flavor the superpotential:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }W=\lambda Y(Q^7Q^8v^2)+\lambda ^{}Y_{i\alpha }Q^iQ^\alpha .`$ (21)
Here, $`i=1,\mathrm{},6`$ and $`\alpha =7,8`$. We also extend the original superpotential by letting the indices in Eq. (11) run over $`1,\mathrm{},8`$. When $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the extra flavor condenses and breaks the gauge group $`Sp(3)Sp(2)`$, while it is eaten by the gauge multiplet. The extra color degrees of freedom of the remaining 3 flavors are made massive by the second term in Eq. (21). The first term in Eq. (11) makes the extra anti-flavors massive. Therefore the theory reduces to the original model.

When $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, on the other hand, it yields a calculable model of $`D`$-term generation with the scale of $`U(1)`$ breaking $`V\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The soft masses can be calculated from anomaly mediation, the corresponding shift in the VEVs can be computed, and the $`D`$-term can be identified. The quick way to see that the model is still in the same universality class is by using the dynamical superpotential. Together with the quantum modified constraint,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }W=\lambda Y(^{78}v^2)+\lambda ^{}Y_{i\alpha }^{i\alpha }+X(\mathrm{Pf}\mathrm{\Lambda }^8).$$
(22)
The meson $``$ includes the 4th flavor, while we keep the notation $`M`$ for the first three flavors. We can immediately conclude that $`^{78}=v^2`$, $`^{i\alpha }=0`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{Pf}=(\mathrm{Pf}M)^{78}=(\mathrm{Pf}M)v^2`$. The last term in the superpotential of Eq. (22) then determines $`(\mathrm{Pf}M)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^8/v^2`$. Therefore the meson VEV breaks $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times U(1)Sp(2)\times SU(2)`$ just as before. What is important is the scale of the VEVs: when $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{Pf}M\mathrm{\Lambda }^6`$, and hence the meson VEVs corresponding to the $`U(1)`$ breaking scale, $`V`$, can be regarded as classical expectation values of quark fields. Therefore we can calculate the effects of soft parameters using the anomaly mediation formula for quark fields instead of composite fields.

At the scale $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^4/v)^{1/3}`$, we look at classical flat direction

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}V& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& V& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& V& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& V& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& V^{}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& V^{}& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(23)
In this notation, the $`Sp(3)`$ gauge group acts from the left, while the $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge groups act from the right on the quark multiplets. Because $`V,V^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^4/v)^{1/3}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, it is a conventional Higgs mechanism that breaks $`Sp(3)\times SU(4)\times SU(2)\times U(1)Sp(2)\times SU(2)`$. Out of $`6\times 8=48`$ components of the quark multiplets, $`(21+15+3+1)(10+3)=27`$ components are eaten. The 12 components in the fourth flavor become massive together with $`Y_{i\alpha }`$ due to the second term in Eq. (21). The $`(4,2)`$ components acquire mass from the second term in Eq. (11). This leaves only one light degree of freedom, namely the direction of $`V`$ itself. We, however, leave the possibility that $`VV^{}`$ in the above expression. This is justified when the $`U(1)`$ coupling is small. The $`D`$-flatness is imposed because the $`D`$-non-flat direction acquires a mass of order $`g_1V`$. When $`g_11`$ we can consider a low-energy effective theory where all particles of mass $`V`$ are integrated out but those of mass $`g_1V`$ are not. We can minimize the potential with respect to $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ later.

Along this flat direction, we need to consider the instanton effect of partially broken gauge groups CM . Because $`\pi _3((Sp(3)\times SU(4)\times SU(2)\times U(1))/(Sp(2)\times SU(2)))=`$, there are instanton effects that are present in the $`Sp(3)\times SU(4)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ which are not part of the low-energy $`Sp(2)\times SU(2)`$ theory. Such effects have to be included in writing down the low-energy theory. In our case, it is

$$^{78}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^8}{V^4V^2}.$$
(24)
This makes the first term in the superpotential Eq. (21)

$`W=\lambda Y\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^8}{V^4V^2}}v^2\right)`$ (25)
while the second term had already been used to integrate out the fourth flavor.

Therefore, the low-energy effective theory we need to solve is given by the directions $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ of the elementary quarks together with the superpotential Eq. (25) and soft supersymmetry breaking effects calculated in the quark language.

Calculating in this framework, we find that the $`D`$-term can be given in terms of the quark soft masses as

$$D=\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{(1,2,2)}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{(4,1,1)}^2}{3g_1}$$
(26)
The quark soft masses themselves arise from anomaly mediation and are given by:

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{(4,1,1)}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|m_{3/2}|^2}{(16\pi ^2)^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{45}{4}}g_4^2144g_1^4)+m_{Sp(3)}^2,`$ (27)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{(1,2,2)}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|m_{3/2}|^2}{(16\pi ^2)^2}}(576g_1^4)+m_{Sp(3)}^2.`$ (28)
Where we have denoted the universal contribution coming from the $`Sp(3)`$ gauge interactions as $`m_{Sp(3)}^2`$. Note that the $`SU(2)`$ theory is conformal at one-loop, so its coupling does not contribute to $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{(1,2,2)}^2`$. The final expression for the $`D`$-term in this case is then

$$D=\frac{|m_{3/2}|^2}{g_1(16\pi ^2)^2}(\frac{15}{4}g_4^4+144g_1^4).$$
(29)
We view the fact that a $`D`$-term is generated in both deformations (with the same sign, no less) as compelling evidence for existence of a $`D`$-term in the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$, which is the situation in our model for $`D`$-term generation.

### IV.3 UV Insensitivity

Let us return to the questions of UV-insensitivity. There might be a concern that additional contributions to the soft masses of the MSSM fields might arise from integrating out other heavy fields charged under the $`U(1)`$. However, because of the charges of the $`Q`$’s under $`Sp(2)`$ and $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times U(1)SU(6)`$, it is impossible to construct a non Planck-suppressed invariant with these fields that could couple to the MSSM. As long as the dynamically generated scale is much less than the Planck scale, these contributions are small. One might imagine generating non-Planck-suppressed operators if there were further fields charged under the $`Sp(2)`$ gauge symmetry. However, this would upset the $`Sp(2)`$ dynamics that breaks $`U(1)`$. So, once we have specified our mechanism for the breaking of $`U(1)`$, there is no room for additional contributions to the soft-masses that will displace them from their renormalization group trajectories.

## V Phenomenology

The spectrum of the superpartners should be nearly identical to that presented in references JackJones ; ViableUV , as we have merely presented a field theoretic realization of that scenario. Electroweak symmetry breaking has not been fully investigated in this scenario, and it would be interesting to explore the possibility of incorporating the NMSSM into this framework. We note that the sequestering mechanism of LutySundrum2  is not perfect, and it is possible that interesting flavor changing effects could be observed soon in the context of this framework.

There are no new light fields in our model. All fields receive supersymmetric masses. That said, we prefer that dynamically generated scale not be too low. The mesons transforming as $`(4,2)_1`$ only get a mass from the last term of Eq. (11), so their masses are expected to be $`m_{(4,2)_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Lambda }/M_{})^3`$. In the model as written, these fields are absolutely stable, so there could be a concern that they might over-close the universe. However, as long as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>10^{16}`$ GeV, they place no constraint on the model above and beyond the usual constraint coming from not producing an over-abundance of gravitinos Kawasaki:1994af . This value for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is sufficiently small that the Planck-suppressed contributions to the Kähler potential of the form of Eq. (10) are negligible. Of course, lower values for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ would be possible for smaller values of the re-heating temperature. If rather than being absolutely stable, these particles decayed through sufficiently Planck suppressed operators, it is possible that their lifetime could be roughly the age of the universe. In this case, they could provide a mechanism to explain the existence of ultra-high energy cosmic rays.

It is interesting to note that this mechanism accommodates the see-saw mechanism seesaw  for neutrino masses. We can add the couplings $`W(N^2M_{(1,1)_4})/M_{}+hLNH_u`$ to the superpotential (where we normalize our $`U(1)`$ so that $`N`$ has charge 2). Then, as the mesons acquire VEVs, the first term provides a mass of the right scale for atmospheric neutrino masses, assuming the Dirac masses are roughly the top mass, as suggested by the $`SO(10)`$ mass relation. Note that there are corrections to the RGE trajectories at higher orders in this case, but the leading order result remains unaffected ViableUV . In particular, one expects that the operator

$$𝒦\frac{|h|^2}{16\pi ^2}\frac{(L^{}e^{q_LV}L)(M^{}e^{q_MV}M)}{M_{}^2M_R^2},$$
(30)
will be generated in the Kähler potential by integrating out the $`N`$ field. Here, $`M_RM/M_{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M_{}`$ is the right handed neutrino mass. Inserting the vacuum expectation values for the mesons and the $`D`$-term, this represents a perturbation away from the anomaly mediated trajectory at the percent level, and it is not entirely automatic that lepton flavor-changing neutral current effects will be safe. On the other hand, this might lead to interesting signals, for example, in processes such as $`\mu e\gamma `$.

Another option to get neutrino masses is to forbid the usual $`LH_uN`$ term in the superpotential, but include the non-renormalizable operator $`LH_uN/M_{}`$ in the Kähler potential. After inserting appropriate powers of the chiral compensator, and expanding $`\varphi ^{}=1+\overline{m}_{3/2}\overline{\theta }^2`$, a term $`LH_uN`$ is generated in the superpotential, with Yukawa coupling of order $`m_{3/2}/M_{}`$, allowing for Dirac neutrinos of the correct scale AdditionalNu .

## VI Conclusion

We have presented the first fully viable model of anomaly mediation. Using the sequestering mechanism of Luty and Sundrum, we are assured that anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking dominates, thereby solving the flavor problem. Supplementing their sequestering mechanism with a mechanism for generating $`D`$-terms, we have given an example of a UV-insensitive four dimensional supersymmetry breaking.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the DOE Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by the NSF grant PHY-0098840


format: text

text:
# Correlation lengths of Wigner crystal order in two dimensional electron system at high magnetic field

## Abstract

The insulator terminating the fractional quantum Hall series at low Landau level filling $`\nu `$ is generally taken to be a pinned Wigner crystal (WC), and exhibits a microwave resonance that is interpreted as a WC pinning mode. Systematically studying the resonance in a high quality sample for carrier densities, $`n`$, between 1.8 and 5.7 $`\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2, we find maxima in resonance peak frequency, $`f_{pk}`$, vs magnetic field, $`B`$. $`L`$, the domain size, or correlation length of Wigner crystalline order, is calculated from $`f_{pk}`$. For each $`n`$, $`L`$ vs $`\nu `$ tends at low $`\nu `$ toward a straight line with intercept; the linear fit is accurate over as much as a factor of 5 range of $`\nu `$. We interpret the striking linear behavior as due to $`B`$ compressing the electron wavefunctions, to alter the effective electron-impurity interaction.

The nature of a two dimensional electron system (2DES) in high magnetic field ($`B`$) depends on the interactions of electrons with each other and with impurities, and on the overlap of individual electron wavefunctions. The size of an electron wavefunction, as measured by the magnetic length, $`l_B=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/eB}`$, controls this overlap, and can also affect the electron-impurity interaction if the effective size or spacing of the impurities is comparable to $`l_B`$. In the high $`B`$ limit, $`l_B`$ vanishes, and electrons look like classical point particles. Without disorder, they are expected to form a Wigner crystal (WC), which is a triangular lattice stabilized by interelectron repulsion. Introduction of small amounts of disorder pins the WC, making it an insulator, and causing the crystalline order to have a finite correlation length or domain size. The wavefunction overlap increases as $`B`$ is decreased from the high $`B`$ limit; its importance is characterized by $`l_B/a`$, where $`a`$ is the WC lattice constant, or equivalently by the Landau filling factor $`\nu =nh/eB=(4\pi /\sqrt{3})(l_B/a)^2`$. At sufficiently high $`\nu `$, calculated wcpredict ; kunwc  for disorder free systems to be around 1/7, the WC ground state is predicted to undergo a transition to the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE)fqheorig  liquids.

Experimentally, 2DES are insulators from the maximum $`B`$ accessed down at least to the high $`B`$ edge of the 1/5 FQHE plateaumsreview ; reentrant . Samples of sufficient quality to exhibit the 1/3 FQHE have a well-defined resonancewilliams ; m124 ; clibdep ; clidensity  in the microwave spectrum of the high $`B`$ insulating phase. The natural interpretation of the resonance is as a pinning mode of the WC, in which regions of WC oscillate within the impurity potential that pins them. The average (per electron) restoring force constant, $`K`$, on static displacement away from equilbrium positions determines the frequency of the resonance peak. This force constant is $`K=m^{}\omega _0^2`$, which defines $`\omega _0`$, the pinning frequencyflr ; nlm , with $`m^{}`$ the carrier effective mass. In the magnetic field, cyclotron motion mixes with the oscillation in the pinning potential for the resonating 2DES, resultingflr  in the observed resonance peak frequency $`f_{pk}=\omega _0^2/2\pi \omega _c`$, as long as the cyclotron frequency $`\omega _c\omega _0`$, which must be the case for resonances in the frequency range of interest. In the classical, high $`B`$ limit, in which $`l_B`$ is much smaller than any feature of the disorder, and also small enough that wavefunction overlap of neighboring electrons can be neglected, $`\omega _0`$ is constant in $`B`$, and $`f_{pk}1/B`$.

Correlation lengths of crystalline order, or domain sizes, can be calculated directly from $`f_{pk}`$ and the elastic constants of the WC. Recent theoriesfertig ; chitra ; fogler  identify the length directly relevant to $`f_{pk}`$ as the Larkin length, $`L`$, over which displacements of equilibrium positions of electrons from perfect crystalline order reach the characteristic length of the electon-impurity interaction. In the classical, high $`B`$ limit, the dependence of $`L`$ on $`B`$ has saturated, and $`L`$ is a constant. Earlier theoryflr ; nlm  considered the particular case of a sinusoidal charge density wave in magnetic field, and so obtained $`f_{pk}`$ in terms of a correlation length that we denote $`L_a`$, over which displacements of equilibrium positions of electrons from perfect crystalline order reaches the lattice constant $`a`$.

This paper presents data on the microwave resonance for a high quality 2DES, surveyed over a wide range of $`B`$ up to 20 T, and density, $`n`$ between 5.7 and 1.8 $`\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 , to cover $`\nu `$ from 0.2 to 0.038. For all the $`n`$’s we looked at, the resonance peak frequency, $`f_{pk}`$, vs $`B`$ exhibits a maximum. Most likely because of higher quality in the present sample, such a maximum was not found in previous studieswilliams ; m124 ; clibdep ; clidensity , in which $`f_{pk}`$ vs $`B`$ was increasing monotonically. We calculate $`L`$ from $`f_{pk}`$ and the theoretical shear modulus of a WC of classical point particles, and find $`L`$ in the range of 0.23 to 0.71 $`\mu `$m. Plots of $`L`$ vs $`\nu `$ (with $`n`$ fixed) tend toward a straight line with intercept, $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$, at low $`\nu `$, with upward curvature developing at most $`n`$’s as $`\nu =1/5`$ is approached from below. The linear form for the $`L`$ vs $`\nu `$ data is quantitatively convincing for the lowest few densities surveyed; at the lowest $`n`$ there is a precise fit to the data over a factor of 5 in $`\nu `$. The large ranges of linear fit for low $`n`$, extending to such low $`\nu `$, suggest the linear behavior is an effect of the interplay of $`l_B`$ and impurity correlation lengths. We interpret the upward curvature that sets in at higher $`\nu `$ as an effect of the correlations responsible for the FQHE.

The microwave measurement methods used here are similar to those described in earlier publications clibdep ; clidensity . The inset to Fig. 1 shows a sketch of the sample. Metal film, shown as black in the figure, was patterned onto the top of the sample to form a coplanar transmission line consisting of a 45 $`\mu `$m wide center strip separated from side planes by slots of width $`W=30`$ $`\mu `$m. The narrow center conductor was driven and the two side conductors were grounded, and the line coupled capacitively to the 2DES. The geometry confines the microwave field mainly to the regions of 2DES under the slots.

The transmitted microwave power was measured and normalized to unity for the case of vanishing $`\sigma _{xx}`$, obtained by depleting the 2DES with backgate voltage. The experiment is sensitive to $`\sigma _{xx}`$ with wavevector $`q2\pi /W`$; we regard the 2DES as in the $`q=0`$ limit in calculating the real part of diagonal conductivity, Re$`(\sigma _{xx})`$, from the microwave absorption. We used Re$`(\sigma _{xx})=W|\mathrm{ln}P|/2Z_0d`$, where $`P`$ is the normalized transmitted power, $`Z_0=50\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the $`\sigma _{xx}=0`$ characteristic impedance, and $`d=28`$ mm is the total length of the transmission line. This formula is valid in the high $`f`$, low loss limit, in the absence of reflections. Detailed simulation of the transmission line with 2DES in the quasi-TEM approximation indicates this formula is correct to about 15% under experimental conditions. The apparatus is typically 20 times more sensitive to Re$`(\sigma _{xx})`$ than it is to Im$`(\sigma _{xx})`$. The temperature of all measurements presented here was $``$ 50 mK. Microwave power was varied to ensure that the measurement was in a linear regime at the operating temperature.

The data were taken on a AlGaAs/GaAs heterojunction sample with as-cooled density ($`n`$) of $`6.0\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 and 0.3 K mobility of $`6\times 10^6`$ cm2/V s. The sample was not illuminated, and its density was varied down to $`1.8\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 by application of a voltage between a backgate and an ohmic contact, placed outside the transmission line film.

Figure 1 shows traces of Re$`(\sigma _{xx})`$ vs $`B`$ in the quantum Hall regime for three different $`n`$’s, for $`f=0.4`$ or 0.5 GHz. The 1/3 FQHE is present for all $`n`$ we survey; even the lowest $`n`$, $`1.8\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2, in Figure 1a, exhibits well defined FQH features, indicating the 2DES remains reasonably homogenous even at the large backgate bias required to produce that $`n`$. The 1/5 FQHE, however, is only present for larger $`n`$, as seen in Figure 1b, where a 1/5 FQHE minimum in Re$`(\sigma _{xx})`$ vs $`B`$ is present for $`n5.3\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 but absent for $`4.0\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2. The traces of Figure 1b show broad peaks beginning just above the 1/3 FQHE. These peaks are the manifestations in Re$`(\sigma _{xx})`$ of the rapidly rising dc $`\rho _{xx}`$ vs $`B`$ reentrant ; sajoto , observed on increasing $`B`$ beyond the 1/3 FQHE. The 1/5 FQHE minimum for $`n4.0\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 is superimposed on that peak.

Figure 2 shows typical resonance spectra, Re$`(\sigma _{xx})`$ vs $`f`$, taken at various $`n`$ and $`B`$. Spectra for several $`B`$ are shown in Figure 2a for $`n=1.8\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 and in Figure 2b for $`n=5.3\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2. For $`\nu `$ just below 1/5, the resonance is present but comparatively broad; increasing $`B`$ initially sharpens the peak and shifts it to higher $`f`$. At some $`n`$-dependent magnetic field, the resonance peak frequency, $`f_{pk}`$, goes through a maximum and begins to shift downward as $`B`$ is increased further. The reduction of $`f_{pk}`$ continues, and the resonance remains well-developed, out to the maximum $`B`$ measured. The maximum $`f_{pk}`$ occurs around 10 T ($`\nu =0.074`$) for the $`n=1.8\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2and around 15 T ($`\nu =0.146`$) for $`n=5.3\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2.

Figure 2c shows resonance spectra for fixed $`B=18`$ T as $`n`$ is varied. The resonances shift to higher $`f`$ and broaden as $`n`$ is decreased. Upward shift and broadening as $`n`$ is decreased at fixed $`B`$ is seen for all $`B`$ where the resonance is observed, and has been observed in other samplesclidensity ; williams  as well.

Figure 3a shows $`f_{pk}`$ vs $`\nu `$ for the various $`n`$’s we studied. Each curve exhibits a maximum in $`f_{pk}`$, and the maxima shift generally to lower $`\nu `$ as $`n`$ decreases. Full width at half maximum linewidths, $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$, are plotted against the same axis in Figure 3b. These increase rapidly as the transition to the FQH liquid is approached. Around the $`\nu `$ where $`f_{pk}`$ is maximal, the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ curve for the same $`n`$ shows a local minimum.

The increasing $`f_{pk}`$ vs $`\nu `$ curves (for fixed $`n`$) on the low $`\nu `$ side of the maxima may be viewed only as the approach to the classical regime in which $`f_{pk}\nu `$ is expected. The observed increase is sublinear, and while the increase of $`f_{pk}`$ with $`\nu `$ is a hint toward the classical behavior, the fully classical, point particle picture is not applicable. The decreasing $`f_{pk}`$ vs $`\nu `$ (increasing $`f_{pk}`$ vs $`B`$), seen in the present data set on the high $`\nu `$ side of the maxima, and throughout previous data setsm124 ; clibdep , has been interpreted in theoriesfertig ; chitra ; fogler  based on an interplay of $`l_B`$ and some disorder correlation length, $`\xi `$, whose definition depends on the model of disorder. The calculations, taken for weak disorder with small $`\xi l_B`$, givefertig  $`f_{pk}B`$, orchitra ; fogler  $`f_{pk}B^2`$ .

To more simply interpret the behavior of $`f_{pk}`$ vs $`\nu `$ we recast the $`f_{pk}`$ data into domain size, $`L`$, using the elastic coefficients of the classical WC. $`L`$ is the localization length of transverse phonons in the $`B=0`$ crystalfogler ; bzeronote . The angular pinning frequency, $`\omega _0=c_t2\pi /L`$, where $`c_t`$ is the $`B=0`$ transverse phonon progagation velocity, $`c_t=(\mu _t/nm^{})^{1/2}`$. $`\mu _t`$ is the shear modulus. A WC of classical point particlesbm  has shear modulus $`\mu _{t,cl}=0.245e^2n^{3/2}/4\pi ϵ_0ϵ`$, where we take $`ϵ=12.8`$ the GaAs host dielectric constant. $`\omega _0`$ is gotten from $`f_{pk}`$ data using the well-known formulaflr  for $`\omega _0\omega _c`$ to take care of the effect of the Lorentz force on the dynamics, $`\omega _0=(2\pi f_{pk}\omega _c)^{1/2}`$. With the classical shear modulus $`\mu _{t,cl}`$ we then get $`L=(2\pi \mu _{t,cl}/neBf_{pk})^{1/2}`$.

Figure 4 shows plots of the calculated $`L`$ vs $`\nu `$ for all the $`n`$’s we measured. Panels a and b of the figure show the same data, with successive curves offset for clarity only in panel a. Most striking are the data for the smallest $`n`$, $`1.8\times 10^{10}`$ cm -2, which fit a straight line over the entire range of measurement of the resonance, over a factor of 5 in $`\nu `$. The fit is accurate to within the instrumental errors in $`L`$, which we estimate as about $`\pm 0.02\mu `$m, propagating mainly from error in $`f_{pk}`$. The plots for all the other $`n`$ tend to curve upwards for larger $`\nu `$, as 1/5 is approached. For the lower $`n`$’s, the linear behavior holds over substantial ranges of $`\nu `$ and is quantitatively demonstrated.

The straight line regions of the $`L`$ vs $`\nu `$ plots extend out to extremely low $`\nu `$, so it is natural to interpret the linear behavior as an effect of electron-disorder interaction rather than interelectron wavefunction overlap. Particularly if it is due to interface roughnessfertig , the disorder potential can vary on extremely small length scales, down to about the lattice constant of GaAs. The small lengthscales associated with the disorder would make the effects of electron-disorder interaction saturate less easily at high $`B`$ than interelectron wavefunction overlap effects.

Because of the clear linear behavior for the lowest few $`n`$’s, we fit the low $`\nu `$ tails of all the $`L`$ vs $`\nu `$ plots to $`L=\beta \nu +L_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\beta `$ and $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the fit parameters, and $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the domain size extrapolated to infinite $`B`$. The least squares fits are shown as heavy lines in Figure 4a, and extend over the points that were included in the fits. The inset to Figure 4b shows the parameters of the least squares fits. The curves appear irregular for larger $`n`$, and are more reliable for small $`n`$, where the linear ranges of $`L`$ vs $`\nu `$ are substantial. For $`n=1.8\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2, $`L_{\mathrm{}}0.17\mu \text{m}2.1a`$.elasticok

In the weak pinning energy limit, random pinning modelsfertig -fogler  predict $`Ln`$, so that $`L`$ increases when the WC is stiffer. $`Ln`$ may explain why the low $`n`$, low $`\nu `$ data of Figure 4b group so closely when plotted against the Landau filling, which contains the density as well as the magnetic length, $`\nu =2\pi nl_B^2`$. $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ vs $`n`$ may give some insight into the nature of the pinning in the limit where electrons look like point particles. In the inset to Figure 4b, $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ vs $`n`$ clearly increases, as expected for weak pinning. For $`n4.2\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2, $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ vs $`n`$ in the inset to that figure is roughly linear, with a fit resulting in a slope of $`2.3\times 10^{22}`$ m3, and intercept of 0.13 $`\mu `$m.

We interpret the upward curvature of the $`L`$ vs $`\nu `$ data as 1/5 is approached (except for $`n=1.8\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2) as effects of correlations related to the FQHE, which require interelectron overlap. One possibility is that $`\mu _t`$ is decreasing as 1/5 is approached due to these correlations, as predicted in a recent theorynarevich  of a WC made up of composite fermions. $`L`$ presented in Figure 4 is calculated using the classical shear modulus, $`L\mu _{t,cl}^{1/2}`$, and would overestimate the true domain size, $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$, if the true shear modulus $`\mu _t`$ is less than $`\mu _{t,cl}`$. This overestimation in the $`L`$ data would result in upward curvature of the plots, even if the underlying $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ vs $`\nu `$ were straight lines, like the $`n=1.8\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 plot in Figure 4. We interpret the reduction in the curvature at low $`n`$ as due to the suppression of the FQH type correlations, owing to the increased importance of disorder relative to electron-electron interaction at lower $`n`$. This is consistent with Figure 1b, in which the 1/5 feature is suppressed at lower $`n`$.

In summary, systematic studies of the microwave resonance for many $`n`$’s show maxima in $`f_{pk}`$ vs $`\nu `$; these curves are greatly simplified on converting $`f_{pk}`$ into a domain size $`L`$. $`L`$ vs $`\nu `$ fits a straight line for low $`n`$ and low $`\nu `$, but curves upward as $`\nu =1/5`$ is approached. The straight line behavior is interpreted as an effect of interplay between electron wavefunctions and disorder features; the upward curvature is interpreted as an effect of FQH-type correlations, possibly associated with softening of the WC.

The authors wish to thank R. Chitra, H. Fertig, M. Fogler and D. Huse for valuable discussions. This work is supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and the National Science Foundation.


text:
# Is There a Significant Excess in Bottom Hadroproduction at the Tevatron?

## Abstract

We discuss the excess in the hadroproduction of $`B`$ mesons at the Tevatron. We show that an accurate use of up-to-date information on the $`B`$ fragmentation function reduces the observed excess to an acceptable level. Possible implications for experimental results reporting *bottom quark* cross sections, also showing an excess with respect to next-to-leading order theoretical predictions, are discussed.

Since a few years, bottom production has been one of the very few instances in which experimental results and Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) predictions have sometimes displayed not too good an agreement. Bottom quark hadroproduction cross sections have been measured by the UA1 Collaboration  at the CERN $`Sp\overline{p}S`$ collider and by both the CDF  and D0  experiments at the Fermilab Tevatron in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions, and found to be about a factor of two or more larger than next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD predictions . CDF has recently published data for $`B^+`$ meson production . They claim an excess over QCD predictions by about a factor of three. The H1 and ZEUS experiments at the electron-proton collider HERA have both measured $`D^{}`$ production cross sections . Both measurements are compatible with QCD calculations , although the ZEUS data is on the high side of the theoretical uncertainty band. Bottom production has been measured at HERA and from photon-photon collisions at LEP, and found to be larger than predictions, by about a factor of three or more . The cross section for the production of the heaviest quark, the top, has also been measured at the Tevatron, and found instead perfectly compatible with theoretical expectations.

By pushing the parameters of the theoretical calculation to somewhat extreme values, it is not impossible to accommodate the bottom spectrum observed at the Tevatron. Alternatively, one can take the discrepancy more seriously, and invoke some “new physics” contribution  in order to explain it. It has also been known for a long time that the fixed order, NLO QCD calculation may be insufficient to explain the data, because of the presence of some enhanced contributions, that can be included via resummation of large classes of Feynman diagrams, and that contribute positively to the cross sections. These contributions are threshold effects, small-$`x`$ effects, and high transverse momentum logarithms, which may be important since most of the cross section is measured at large transverse momentum. A full calculation of next-to-next-to-leading QCD contributions, years ahead in the future, might finally also contribute to explain the apparent discrepancy.

In this Letter we shall not try to improve on the perturbative aspects of heavy quark production. We shall instead focus our attention on a specific non-perturbative issue, namely on the implementation of hadronization effects. In fact, we shall argue that a good part of the discrepancy between theory and data arises when one tries to supplement the perturbative prediction for $`b`$ quark production with a non-perturbative model for the formation of a $`B`$ meson from the $`b`$ quark, or, alternatively, to correct the data in an attempt to give a $`b`$ quark spectrum rather than a $`B`$ meson one. The non-perturbative hadron formation effect is usually introduced by writing the hadron-level cross section for $`B`$ mesons as

$$\frac{d\sigma ^B}{dp_\mathrm{T}}=𝑑\widehat{p}_\mathrm{T}𝑑z\frac{d\sigma ^b}{d\widehat{p}_\mathrm{T}}D(z)\delta (p_\mathrm{T}z\widehat{p}_\mathrm{T}),$$
(1)
the function $`D(z)`$ being a phenomenological parametrization of hadronization effects. Traditionally, the Peterson et al.  $`D(z;ϵ)`$ form of the fragmentation function is used, implemented in conjunction with a quark cross section given by a shower Monte Carlo program. The $`ϵ`$ parameter is obtained from fits to $`e^+e^{}`$ data . The effect of fragmentation is to reduce the momentum of the $`B`$ meson with respect to that of the $`b`$ quark. It is roughly a 10% effect, being of the order of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/m`$, where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is a hadronic scale, of the order of a few hundred MeV, and $`m`$ is the bottom quark mass. It has however an important impact on the value of the cross section, because of the steeply falling transverse momentum spectrum of the $`b`$ quark. Since transverse momentum cuts are always applied, the measurable cross section is strongly reduced by this effect. It should be clear from this discussion that, in order to assess the presence of a discrepancy in the $`B`$ production data, the effect of fragmentation should be assessed clearly and unambiguously.

In Ref.  the CDF Collaboration compares its data to a theoretical prediction obtained by convoluting the NLO cross section for bottom quarks with a Peterson fragmentation function. They use $`ϵ=0.006\pm 0.002`$, which is the traditional value proposed in Ref. . They claim that their data is a factor of 2.9 higher than the QCD calculation.

The purpose of this Letter is precisely to implement correctly the effect of heavy quark fragmentation in the QCD calculation. Several ingredients are necessary in order to do this:

* A calculation with resummation of large transverse momentum logarithms at the next-to-leading level (NLL) should be used for heavy quark production , in order to correctly account for scaling violation in the fragmentation function.
* A formalism for merging the NLL resummed results with the NLO fixed order calculation (FO) should be used, in order to account properly for mass effects . This calculation will be called FONLL in the following.
* A NLL formalism should be used to extract the non-perturbative fragmentation effects from $`e^+e^{}`$ data .

We begin by pointing out that, as shown in Refs. , the value $`ϵ=0.006`$ is appropriate only when a leading-log (LL) calculation of the spectrum is used, as is the case in shower Monte Carlo programs. When NLL calculations are used, smaller values of $`ϵ`$ are needed to fit the data. It must further be pointed out that, as noted in , it is not the detailed knowledge of the whole spectrum of $`D(z)`$ in $`z[0,1]`$ to be relevant for the calculation of hadronic cross sections. For the steeply falling differential distributions $`d\sigma /dp_\mathrm{T}`$, that have usually a power law behaviour, the knowledge of some specific moment of the fragmentation function

$$D_ND(z)z^N\frac{dz}{z}$$
(2)
is sufficient to obtain the hadronic cross section. In fact, assuming that $`d\widehat{\sigma }/d\widehat{p}_\mathrm{T}=A\widehat{p}_\mathrm{T}^n`$ in the neighborhood of some $`\widehat{p}_\mathrm{T}`$ value, one immediately finds

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dp_\mathrm{T}}=𝑑z𝑑\widehat{p}_\mathrm{T}D(z)\frac{A}{\widehat{p}_\mathrm{T}^n}\delta (p_\mathrm{T}z\widehat{p}_\mathrm{T})=\frac{A}{p_\mathrm{T}^n}D_n.$$
(3)
Thus, the hadronic cross section is given by the product of the partonic cross section times the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ moment of the fragmentation function, where $`n`$ is the power behaviour of the cross section in the neighborhood of the value of $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ being considered. In Ref.  it is also shown that this is an excellent approximation to the exact integral in the cases of interest. The value of $`n`$ for the $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ spectrum in the region of interest ranges from 3 to 5. It is therefore clear that, when fitting $`e^+e^{}`$ data, getting a good determination of the moments of the non-perturbative fragmentation function between 3 and 5 is more important than attempting to describe the whole $`z`$ spectrum.

Fig. 1 shows the moments calculated from the $`x_E`$ (the $`B`$ meson energy fraction with respect to the beam energy) distribution data for weakly decaying $`B`$ mesons in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions published by the ALEPH Collaboration . The experimental error bars shown in the plot have been evaluated by taking into account the full bin-to-bin correlation matrix . Four curves are superimposed to the data. All of them have been obtained with an underlying NLL perturbative description . The bottom quark mass $`m`$ has been taken equal to 4.75 GeV and the QCD scale has been fixed to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(5)}=0.226`$ GeV. Sudakov resummation has not been included, since its effect is negligible in the low-moment region . These are the default values of the parameters that we shall use in this work for the computation of the hadronic cross section.

The dot-dashed line represents the purely perturbative part. The dashed line represents the convolution of the perturbative part described above with a Peterson form with $`ϵ=0.006`$. It is evident that this produces a poor description of even the lowest moments. The dotted line is obtained using $`ϵ=0.002`$, a value known to produce good fits of the $`x_E`$ distribution when used together with a NLL perturbative calculation . The description of the moments improves, but the line still cannot fall within the error bars. There is thus a problem in obtaining a good fit of the low moments of the fragmentation function using the Peterson parametrization. The problem can be traced back to the need to fit points with very large $`x_E`$ (where most of the $`e^+e^{}`$ data is) since there the perturbative calculation becomes less reliable. Normally, the very large $`x_E`$ region is excluded from the fit because of this reason. The computed cross section is thus allowed to become negative in this region, a fact that leads to an underestimate of the low moments.

It should be clear from the aforementioned arguments that, in order to make accurate predictions for hadronic cross sections, the non-perturbative part of the fragmentation should be fitted in such a way that the low moments are well reproduced. This is shown in the solid line in the figure. A one-parameter form of the non-perturbative fragmentation function has been used***Exactly which functional form is used is actually not relevant. However, for the sake of completeness, we mention that we have used a normalized Kartvelishvili et al. form , $`D(z;\alpha )=(\alpha +1)(\alpha +2)z^\alpha (1z)`$. and its free parameter has been fixed by fitting the $`N=2`$ point in moments space, i.e. the average energy fraction $`x_E`$. In this case the functional form is good enough to describe well the experimental data up to $`N10`$. It is therefore a good candidate to be employed in the calculation of the hadronic cross section according to Eq. (1). We shall refer to this fit in the following as the “$`N=2`$ fit”.

We notice that the effect of non-perturbative fragmentation (i.e., the ratio of the dashed, dotted and solid curves with the dot-dashed curve) is considerably reduced when the moments are fitted. Thus, perturbation theory alone gives a much better description of the low moments of the fragmentation function, rather than of its shape in $`x`$-space, requiring less non-perturbative input. This is a consequence of the fact that, at large $`x`$, many enhanced non-perturbative contributions and hadronization effects due to the limited phase space come into play. Indeed, the form of the leading power correction in moments space is well known, and reads

$$D_N=1(N1)\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m}+𝒪\left(\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}{m^2}\right).$$
(4)
It can easily be checked that the form we employed in the $`N=2`$ fit is consistent with this leading power correction, provided one replaces $`\alpha `$ with $`2m/\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. One can also clearly see the non-perturbative correction to be minimal for $`N=2`$. It is therefore always desirable to study moments, rather than the $`x`$ shape of the fragmentation function, also in order to perform QCD studies.

In Figs. 2 and 3 we show the final prediction for $`B`$ hadroproduction at the Tevatron, obtained by the procedure outlined above. It is clearly shown how the “Peterson with $`ϵ=0.006`$” choice underestimates the $`B`$ cross section at large values of $`p_\mathrm{T}`$. It is also clear that the claimed discrepancy of a factor of 2.9 is now reduced to a factor of 1.7 with respect to the central value prediction. The band obtained by varying the scales gives an idea of the theoretical error involved, and, as one can see, the data are not far above it.

At this point, we wish to quantify to what extent the various ingredients of the present calculation affect the computed cross section, so that it is in fact larger than the one given in Ref. . This is shown in Fig. 4. From the figure we see that the FO (Fixed Order) calculation with $`ϵ=0.006`$ is the lowest curve. Using the more appropriate value $`ϵ=0.002`$ brings about a 20% increase of the cross section at $`p_\mathrm{T}=20`$. Using the FONLL calculation of Ref.  brings about another 20% increase, and so does also the use of the $`N=2`$ fit. The total effect is an increase by a factor of $`1.2^31.7`$, which turns the factor of 2.9 reported in Ref.  into the $`1.7`$ observed here.

Our FO, $`ϵ=0.006`$ cross section is also higher than the one presented in Ref.  in the low $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ region. This difference could be due to the different possible treatments of fragmentation at small transverse momentum. We have applied the fragmentation to the momentum, rather than the energy or the $`+`$ component, of the fragmenting particle. We believe that these other choices, although acceptable in the large-$`p_\mathrm{T}`$ region, are not appropriate in the non-relativistic limit.

The SLD experiment has also published accurate data on the $`b`$ fragmentation function . Using their data instead of the ALEPH ones brings about a slight decrease of the cross section, below 4% in the region of interest. On the other hand, using more recent parton distribution function sets , we find an increase of the predicted cross section between 4 and 8% in the region of interest.

In summary, we find that an appropriate treatment of the fragmentation properties of the $`b`$ quark considerably reduces the discrepancy of the CDF transverse momentum spectrum for the $`B`$ mesons and the corresponding QCD calculation. The experimental points are compatible with predictions obtained using the present value of the QCD scale parameter and of the structure functions, and a $`b`$ pole mass of $`4.75`$ GeV, and lie near the upper region of the theoretical band obtained by varying the factorization and renormalization scales. Including experimental and theoretical uncertainties, the updated Data/Theory ratio can be written as 1.7 $`\pm `$ 0.5 (expt) $`\pm `$ 0.5 (theory). The calculation we have adopted includes in a consistent way fixed order QCD results and the NLL resummation of transverse momentum logarithms. Furthermore, the “moments” method introduced here avoids the difficult large-$`x`$ region in the fragmentation function, that would require more complex treatment and introduce further uncertainties.

While we have here convoluted a perturbative prediction to get a hadron level result, the opposite path is followed by experiments when they deconvolute their hadron level cross sections in order to publish quark level data . In the light of what argued in this Letter, and of the apparent excess also shown by those data, it will be advisable to investigate whether a similar bias might have affected those results.

In the meantime, we emphasize the importance of the direct measurements of the moments of the fragmentation function for heavy quarks. Measuring directly moments instead of the $`x`$ distribution could be useful for the purpose of QCD studies, and also for the computation of production cross sections in hadronic collisions.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank Tommaso Boccali for useful conversation. MC wishes to thank Mario Greco for the invitation to the La Thuile conference, which prompted this investigation, and, more importantly, for the extensive collaboration on this subject.