text:
# I introduction

## I introduction

Both collinear and $`k_T`$ factorizations are the fundamental tools of perturbative QCD (PQCD), where $`k_T`$ denotes parton transverse momenta. For inclusive processes, consider deeply inelastic scattering (DIS) of a hadron, carrying a momentum $`p`$, by a virtual photon, carrying a momentum $`q`$. Collinear factorization  and $`k_T`$ factorization  apply, when DIS is measured at a large and small Bjorken variable $`x_Bq^2/(2pq)`$, respectively. The cross section is written as the convolution of a hard subprocess with a hadron distribution function in a parton momentum fraction $`x`$ in the former, and in both $`x`$ and $`k_T`$ in the latter. When $`x_B`$ is small, $`xx_B`$ can reach a small value, at which $`k_T`$ is of the same order of magnitude as the longitudinal momentum $`xp`$, and not negligible. For exclusive processes, such as hadron form factors, collinear factorization was developed in . The range of a parton momentum fraction $`x`$, contrary to that in the inclusive case, is not experimentally controllable, and must be integrated over between 0 and 1. Hence, the end-point region with a small $`x`$ is not avoidable. If there is no end-point singularity developed in a hard amplitude, collinear factorization works. If such a singularity occurs, indicating the breakdown of collinear factorization, $`k_T`$ factorization should be employed. Since $`k_T`$ factorization theorem was proposed , there had been wide applications to various processes . However, a rigorous proof is not yet available.

Based on the concepts of collinear and $`k_T`$ factorizations, the PQCD  and QCD factorization (QCDF)  approaches to exclusive $`B`$ meson decays have been developed, respectively. As applying collinear factorization to the semileptonic decay $`B\pi \mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ at large recoil, an end-point singularity from $`x0`$ was observed . Some authors then concluded that PQCD is not applicable to these decays even in the heavy quark limit . According to the above explanation, this conclusion is obviously too strong. We would rather conclude that it is collinear factorization which fails, and that exclusive $`B`$ meson decays demand $`k_T`$ factorization. Retaining the dependence on the parton transverse momentum $`k_T`$, and resumming the resultant double logarithms $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}^2k_T`$ into a Sudakov form factor , the singularity does not exist. PQCD is then self-consistent and reliable as an expansion in a small coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ .

In this paper we shall prove the factorization theorem with the $`k_T`$ dependence included into two-parton meson wave functions and into hard amplitudes. In our previous works we have proposed a simple all-order proof of collinear factorization theorem for the exclusive process $`\pi \gamma ^{}\gamma (\pi )`$ and $`B\gamma (\pi )l\overline{\nu }`$ up to the two-parton twist-3 level . The proof of $`k_T`$ factorization theorem follows the similar procedures. We stress that it is more convenient to perform $`k_T`$ factorization in the impact parameter $`b`$ space, in which infrared divergences in radiative corrections can be extracted from parton-level diagrams explicitly. We shall explain how to construct a gauge-invariant $`b`$-dependent meson wave function defined as a nonlocal matrix element with a special path for the Wilson link. Evaluating this matrix element in perturbation theory, the infrared divergences in the parton-level diagrams are exactly reproduced.

We emphasize that predictions for a physical quantity from $`k_T`$ factorization theorem are gauge-invariant, even though three-parton wave functions are not included. The valence partons, carrying only longitudinal momenta, are initially on-shell. They acquire the transverse degrees of freedom through collinear gluon exchanges, before participating hard scattering. Therefore, the parton-level amplitudes are gauge-invariant. A hard amplitude, derived from the parton-level amplitudes with the gauge-invariant and infrared-divergent meson wave function being subtracted, is then gauge-invariant and infrared-finite. At last, we obtain gauge-invariant and infrared-finite predictions by convoluting the hard amplitude with a model wave function, which is determined from nonperturbative methods (such as lattice QCD and QCD sum rules).

## II FACTORIZATION OF $`\pi \gamma ^{}\gamma (\pi )`$

We first prove $`k_T`$ factorization theorem for the exclusive process $`\pi \gamma ^{}\gamma `$. This process, though containing no end-point singularity, is simple and appropriate for a demonstration. The momentum $`P_1(P_2)`$ of the initial-state pion (final-state photon) is chosen as

$`P_1`$ $`=`$ $`(P_1^+,0,\mathrm{𝟎}_T)={\displaystyle \frac{Q}{\sqrt{2}}}(1,0,\mathrm{𝟎}_T),`$ (1)
$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`(0,P_2^{},\mathrm{𝟎}_T)={\displaystyle \frac{Q}{\sqrt{2}}}(0,1,\mathrm{𝟎}_T).`$ (2)
We concentrate on the kinematic region with large $`Q=\sqrt{q^2}`$, $`q=P_2P_1`$ being the momentum transfer from the virtual photon, in which scattering mechanism is governed by PQCD. The lowest-order diagrams are displayed in Fig. 1. Assume that the on-shell $`u`$ and $`\overline{u}`$ quarks carry the fractional momenta $`\overline{x}P_1`$ and $`xP_1`$, respectively, with $`\overline{x}1x`$. The reason for considering an arbitrary $`x`$ will become clear later. Figure 1(a) gives the parton-level amplitude,

$`𝒢^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`ie^2\overline{u}(xP_1)\mathit{ϵ̸}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2x\mathit{}_1}{(P_2xP_1)^2}}\gamma _\mu u(\overline{x}P_1),`$ (3)
where $`ϵ`$ denotes the polarization vector of the outgoing photon. Figure 1(b) leads to the same result.

The factorization in the fermion flow is achieved by inserting the Fierz identity,

$`I_{ij}I_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}I_{ik}I_{lj}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\gamma ^\alpha )_{ik}(\gamma _\alpha )_{lj}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\gamma ^5\gamma ^\alpha )_{ik}(\gamma _\alpha \gamma ^5)_{lj}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\gamma ^5)_{ik}(\gamma ^5)_{lj}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(\gamma ^5\sigma ^{\alpha \beta })_{ik}(\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\gamma ^5)_{lj},`$ (4)
with $`I`$ being the identity matrix and $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }i[\gamma _\alpha ,\gamma _\beta ]/2`$. For the momenta chosen in Eq. (2), only the structure $`\gamma ^5\gamma ^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =+`$ contributes to the wave function at leading twist (twist 2). The other structures contribute at higher twists, and the factorization of the corresponding wave functions is similar.

Equation (3) is then factorized into

$`𝒢^{(0)}(x)=\psi ^{(0)}(x)^{(0)}(x),`$ (5)
where

$`\psi ^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4P_1^+}}\overline{u}(xP_1)\gamma ^5\mathit{}_{}u(\overline{x}P_1),`$ (6)
$`^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`ie^2{\displaystyle \frac{tr(\mathit{ϵ̸}\mathit{}_2\gamma _\mu \mathit{}_1\gamma ^5)}{2xP_1P_2}},`$ (7)
with the dimensionless vector $`n_{}=(0,1,\mathrm{𝟎}_T)`$ on the light cone, define the lowest-order distribution amplitude and hard amplitude in perturbation theory, respectively. Note that none of $`𝒢^{(0)}(x)`$, $`\psi ^{(0)}(x)`$, and $`^{(0)}(x)`$ depends on a transverse momentum in the $`O(\alpha _s^0)`$ factorization.

### A $`O(\alpha _s)`$ Factorization

Next we consider the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ radiative corrections to Fig. 1(a) shown in Figs. 2(a)-2(f), where the gluon carries the loop momentum $`l`$. As stated in , there are two types of infrared divergences, soft and collinear, which arise from $`l`$ with the components,

$`l^+l^{}l_T\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},`$ (8)
$`l^+Q,l^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2/Q,l_T\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},`$ (9)
respectively. Here $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, being of $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$, represents a small scale. Below we work out the factorization of the collinear enhancement from $`l`$ parallel to $`P_1`$ without integrating out the transverse components $`l_T`$. The prescription is basically similar to that for collinear factorization. The wave function and the hard amplitude then become $`l_T`$-dependent through collinear gluon exchanges.

We derive the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ $`k_T`$ factorization formula, written as the convolution over the momentum fraction $`\xi `$ and over the impact parameter $`b`$,

$`𝒢^{(1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=a}{\overset{f}{}}}𝒢_i^{(1)}(x),`$ (10)
$`𝒢_i^{(1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi \frac{d^2b}{(2\pi )^2}\varphi _i^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)H^{(0)}(\xi ,b)}+\psi ^{(0)}(x)_i^{(1)}(x),`$ (11)
The above expression, with the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ wave functions $`\varphi _i^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)`$ and $`H^{(0)}(\xi ,b)`$ specified, defines the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ hard amplitudes $`_i^{(1)}(x)`$, which do not contain collinear divergences. It is now obvious why we consider an arbitrary $`x`$ for the parton-level diagrams in Figs. 1 and 2: we can obtain the functional form of $`_i^{(1)}(x)`$ in $`x`$. Equation (11) is a consequence of our assertion that partons acquire transverse degrees of freedom through collinear gluon exchanges: $`^{(1)}`$, convoluted with the lowest-order $`l_T`$-independent $`\psi ^{(0)}`$, is then identical to that in collinear factorization. As explained later, this consequence is crucial for constructing gauge-invariant hard amplitudes.

Figures 2(a) and 2(c) are self-energy corrections to the external lines. In this case the loop momentum $`l`$ does not flow through the hard amplitude. The $`O(\alpha _s)`$ wave functions extracted from these two diagrams are the same as in the collinear factorization . We simply quote the results,

$`\varphi _a^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2C_F}{4P_1^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\overline{u}(xP_1)\gamma ^5\mathit{}_{}\frac{1}{\overline{x}\mathit{}_1}\gamma ^\nu \frac{\overline{x}\mathit{}_1+\mathit{}}{(\overline{x}P_1+l)^2}\gamma _\nu u(\overline{x}P_1)\frac{1}{l^2}\delta (\xi x)},`$ (12)
$`\varphi _c^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2C_F}{4P_1^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\overline{u}(xP_1)\gamma ^\nu \frac{x\mathit{}_1\mathit{}}{(xP_1l)^2}\gamma _\nu \frac{1}{x\mathit{}_1}\gamma ^5\mathit{}_{}u(\overline{x}P_1)\frac{1}{l^2}\delta (\xi x)}.`$ (13)
The loop integrand associated with Fig. 2(b) is given by

$`I_b^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`e^2g^2C_F\overline{u}(xP_1)\gamma ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{x\mathit{}_1\mathit{}}{(xP_1l)^2}}\mathit{ϵ̸}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2x\mathit{}_1+\mathit{}}{(P_2xP_1+l)^2}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}\mathit{}_1+\mathit{}}{(\overline{x}P_1+l)^2}}\gamma _\nu u(\overline{x}P_1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}.`$ (14)
Inserting the Fierz identity, we obtain the wave function,

$`\varphi _b^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2C_F}{4P_1^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\overline{u}(xP_1)\frac{\gamma ^\nu (x\mathit{}_1\mathit{})\gamma ^5\mathit{}_{}(\overline{x}\mathit{}_1+\mathit{})\gamma _\nu }{(xP_1l)^2(\overline{x}P_1+l)^2l^2}u(\overline{x}P_1)\delta \left(\xi x+\frac{l^+}{P_1^+}\right)e^{i𝐥_T𝐛}}.`$ (15)
The Fourier transformation introduces the additional factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i𝐥_T𝐛)`$ into the wave function $`\varphi _b^{(1)}`$ compared to the result in collinear factorization , since the hard amplitude depends on $`l_T`$ in this case.

The integrand associated with the two-particle irreducible diagram in Fig. 2(d) is given by

$`I_d^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`e^2g^2C_F\overline{u}(xP_1)\mathit{ϵ̸}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2x\mathit{}_1}{(P_2xP_1)^2}}\gamma ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2x\mathit{}_1+\mathit{}}{(P_2xP_1+l)^2}}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}\mathit{}_1+\mathit{}}{(\overline{x}P+l)^2}}\gamma _\nu u(\overline{x}P_1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}.`$ (16)
To collect the leading contribution, $`\gamma ^\nu `$ and $`\gamma _\nu `$ must be $`\gamma ^{}`$ and $`\gamma _{}=\gamma ^+`$, respectively. In the collinear region the following approximation holds,

$`(\mathit{}_2x\mathit{}_1)\gamma ^\nu (\mathit{}_2x\mathit{}_1+\mathit{})`$ $``$ $`2P_2^\nu \mathit{}_2,`$ (17)
where the $`l^{}`$ and $`l_T`$ terms, being power-suppressed compared to $`P_2^{}`$, have been dropped.

The factorization of the collinear enhancement from Figs. 2(d) requires the further approximation for the product of the two internal quark propagators ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2P_2^\nu }{(P_2xP_1)^2(P_2xP_1+l)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{}^\nu }{n_{}l}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P_2xP_1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P_2xP_1+l)^2}}\right],`$ (18)
where the numerator $`2P_2^\nu `$ comes from Eq. (17), and the factor $`n_{}^\nu /n_{}l`$ is exactly the Feynman rule associated with a Wilson line in collinear factorization. Similarly, we have neglected the power-suppressed terms, such as $`l^2`$ and $`xP_1l`$. The first (second) term on the right-hand side of Eq. (18) corresponds to the case without (with) the loop momentum $`l`$ flowing through the hard amplitude.

The above eikonal approximation also applies to Fig. 2(e). Hence, the extracted $`O(\alpha _s)`$ wave functions are written as

$`\varphi _d^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2C_F}{4P_1^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\overline{u}(xP_1)\gamma ^5\mathit{}_{}\frac{\overline{x}\mathit{}_1+\mathit{}}{(\overline{x}P_1+l)^2}\gamma _\nu u(\overline{x}P_1)\frac{1}{l^2}\frac{n_{}^\nu }{n_{}l}}`$ (20)
$`\times \left[\delta (\xi x)\delta \left(\xi x+{\displaystyle \frac{l^+}{P_1^+}}\right)e^{i𝐥_T𝐛}\right],`$
$`\varphi _e^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2C_F}{4P_1^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\overline{u}(xP_1)\gamma _\nu \frac{x\mathit{}_1\mathit{}}{(xP_1l)^2}\gamma ^5\mathit{}_{}u(\overline{x}P_1)\frac{1}{l^2}\frac{n_{}^\nu }{n_{}l}}`$ (22)
$`\times \left[\delta (\xi x)\delta \left(\xi x+{\displaystyle \frac{l^+}{P_1^+}}\right)e^{i𝐥_T𝐛}\right],`$
where the first (second) term in the brackets is associated with the first (second) term on the right-hand side of Eq. (18). Due to the Fourier transformation, the second terms acquire the additional factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i𝐥_T𝐛)`$ compared to the results in collinear factorization.

Figure 2(f) does not exhibit a collinear enhancement, since the radiative gluon gives a self-energy correction to the off-shell internal line. Hence, we have $`\varphi _f^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)=0`$. It is easy to observe that the soft divergences cancel among the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ radiative corrections. In the soft region of $`l`$ we have $`\mathrm{exp}(i𝐥_T𝐛)1`$ and $`l^+0`$, and the two terms in Eqs. (20) and (22) cancel. Similarly, the soft divergences cancel among Figs. 2(a)-2(c). This is the reason we discuss only the factorization of the collinear enhancements.

The above $`O(\alpha _s)`$ wave functions can be reproduced by the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ terms of the following nonlocal matrix element in the $`b`$ space,

$`\varphi (x,\xi ,b)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}}{2\pi }e^{i\xi P_1^+y^{}}0|\overline{u}(y)\gamma _5\mathit{}_{}P\mathrm{exp}\left[ig_0^y𝑑sA(s)\right]u(0)|\overline{u}(xP_1)u(\overline{x}P_1)},`$ (23)
with the coordinate $`y=(0,y^{},𝐛)`$. The path for the Wilson link is composed of three pieces: from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$ along the direction of $`n_{}`$, from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}+𝐛`$, and from $`\mathrm{}+𝐛`$ back to $`y`$ along the direction of $`n_{}`$ as displayed in Fig. 3. We show that the first piece corresponds to the eikonal line associated with the first terms in Eqs. (20) and (22). Fourier transforming the gauge field $`A(s)`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{A}(l)`$, we have

$`ig{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z\mathrm{exp}[iz(n_{}l+iϵ)]n_{}\stackrel{~}{A}(l)=g{\displaystyle \frac{n_{}^\alpha }{n_{}l}}\stackrel{~}{A}_\alpha (l).`$ (24)
The field $`\stackrel{~}{A}(l)`$, contracted with other gauge fields, gives the propagator of the gluon attaching the eikonal line. The second piece does not contribute because of the appropriate choice of the small imaginary constant $`+iϵ`$ in the above expression. The third piece corresponds to the eikonal line associated with the second terms in Eqs. (20) and (22). The additional Fourier factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i𝐥_T𝐛)`$ is a consequence of the shift by $`𝐛`$ from the first piece:

$`ig{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^y^{}}𝑑z\mathrm{exp}[iz(n_{}l+iϵ)i𝐥_T𝐛]n_{}\stackrel{~}{A}(l)=g{\displaystyle \frac{n_{}^\alpha }{n_{}l}}e^{i𝐥_T𝐛}e^{il^+y^{}}\stackrel{~}{A}_\alpha (l),`$ (25)
where the Fourier factor $`\mathrm{exp}(il^+y^{})`$ leads to the function $`\delta (\xi x+l^+/P_1^+)`$.

At last, for the evaluation of the lowest-order hard amplitude, we neglect only the minus component $`l^{}`$ in the denominator \[see the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (18)\],

$`(P_2xP_1+l)^2(2\xi P_1P_2+l_T^2).`$ (26)
Note that in collinear factorization both $`l^{}`$ and $`l_T`$ are dropped. The $`b`$-dependent hard amplitude is then given by,

$`H^{(0)}(\xi ,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2l_T^{(0)}(\xi ,l_T)\mathrm{exp}(i𝐥_T𝐛)},`$ (27)
$`^{(0)}(\xi ,l_T)`$ $`=`$ $`ie^2{\displaystyle \frac{tr(\mathit{ϵ̸}\mathit{}_2\gamma _\mu \mathit{}_1\gamma ^5)}{2\xi P_1P_2+l_T^2}}.`$ (28)
Equivalently, the above $`^{(0)}(\xi ,l_T)`$ is derived by considering an off-shell $`\overline{u}`$ quark, which carries the momentum $`\xi P_1𝐥_T`$, and the leading structure $`\mathit{}_1\gamma _5`$ associated with the pion, which is the same as in collinear factorization.

### B All-order Factorization

In this subsection we present the all-order proof of $`k_T`$ factorization theorem for the process $`\pi \gamma ^{}\gamma `$, and construct the parton-level wave function in Eq. (23). The proof is similar to that for collinear factorization, if it is performed in the impact parameter $`b`$ space. It will be observed that collinear factorization is the $`b0`$ limit of $`k_T`$ factorization. Therefore, we just highlight the differences, and refer the rest of details to . The idea of the proof is based on induction. The factorization of the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ collinear enhancements has been derived in the previous subsection. Consider $`G^{(0)}(x,b)`$ and $`G^{(1)}(x,b)`$ defined via

$`𝒢^{(0),(1)}(x)𝒢^{(0),(1)}(x,k_T=0)={\displaystyle \frac{d^2b}{(2\pi )^2}G^{(0),(1)}(x,b)},`$ (29)
which indicates that the integration over the variable $`b`$ corresponds to an amplitude with $`k_T=0`$ for external particles. The $`O(\alpha _s)`$ hard amplitude $`H^{(1)}(\xi ,b)`$ is defined similarly via $`^{(1)}(\xi )`$. We obtain the factorization formula up to $`O(\alpha _s)`$,

$`G^{(0)}(x,b)+G^{(1)}(x,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi \left[\varphi ^{(0)}(x,\xi ,b)+\varphi ^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)\right]\left[H^{(0)}(\xi ,b)+H^{(1)}(\xi ,b)\right]},`$ (30)
with $`\varphi ^{(0)}(x,\xi ,b)=\psi ^{(0)}(x)\delta (\xi x)`$. The summation over all the diagrams is understood.

Assume that factorization theorem holds up to $`O(\alpha _s^N)`$,

$`G^{(j)}(x,b)={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{j}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi \varphi ^{(i)}(x,\xi ,b)H^{(ji)}(\xi ,b)},j=1,\mathrm{},N,`$ (31)
where $`\varphi ^{(i)}(x,\xi ,b)`$ is given by the $`O(\alpha _s^i)`$ terms in the perturbative expansion of Eq. (23). $`H^{(ji)}(\xi ,b)`$ stands for the $`O(\alpha _s^{ji})`$ infrared-finite hard amplitude. Equations (30) and (31) approach the expressions in collinear factorization as $`b0`$ as stated above. We shall show that the $`O(\alpha _s^{N+1})`$ diagrams $`𝒢^{(N+1)}`$ in the momentum space is written as the convolution of the $`O(\alpha _s^N)`$ diagrams $`𝒢^{(N)}`$ with the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ wave function by employing the Ward identity,

$`l_\mu G^\mu (l,k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)=0,`$ (32)
where $`G^\mu `$ represents a physical amplitude with an external gluon carrying the momentum $`l`$ and with $`n`$ external quarks carrying the momenta $`k_1`$, $`k_2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`k_n`$. All these external particles are on the mass shell. It is known that factorization of a QCD process in momentum, spin and color spaces requires summation of many diagrams. With the Ward identity, the diagram summation can be handled in an elegant way.

Look for the gluon in a complete set of $`O(\alpha _s^{N+1})`$ diagrams $`𝒢^{(N+1)}`$, one of whose ends attaches the outer most vertex on the upper $`u`$ quark line in the pion. Let $`\alpha `$ denote the outer most vertex, and $`\beta `$ denote the attachments of the other end of the identified gluon inside the rest of the diagrams. There are two types of collinear configurations associated with this gluon, depending on whether the vertex $`\beta `$ is located on an internal line with a momentum along $`P_1`$. The quark spinor adjacent to the vertex $`\alpha `$ is $`u(\overline{x}P_1)`$. If $`\beta `$ is not located on a collinear line along $`P_1`$, the component $`\gamma ^+`$ in $`\gamma ^\alpha `$ and the minus component of the vertex $`\beta `$ give the leading contribution. If $`\beta `$ is located on a collinear line along $`P_1`$, $`\beta `$ can not be minus, and both $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ label the transverse components. This configuration is the same as of the self-energy correction to an on-shell particle.

According to the above classification, we decompose the tensor $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ appearing in the propagator of the identified gluon into

$`g_{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{n_\alpha l_\beta }{n_{}l}}\delta _\alpha \delta _\beta +\left(g_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{n_\alpha l_\beta }{n_{}l}}+\delta _\alpha \delta _\beta \right).`$ (33)
The first term on the right-hand side extracts the first type of collinear enhancements, since the light-like vector $`n_\alpha `$ selects the plus component of $`\gamma ^\alpha `$, and the dominant component $`l_{\beta =}`$ in the collinear region selects the minus component of the vertex $`\beta `$. The components $`l_{\beta =+,}`$ do not change the collinear structure, since they are negligible in the numerators compared to the leading terms proportional to $`P_1^+`$ and $`P_2^{}`$. This can be confirmed by contracting $`l_\beta `$ to Figs. 2(d) and 2(e), from which Eq. (18) is obtained. The second term extracts the second type of collinear enhancements. The last term does not contribute a collinear enhancement due to the equation of motion for the $`u`$ quark. We shall concentrate on the factorization of $`𝒢_{}^{(N+1)}`$ corresponding to the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (33), and the factorization associated with the second term can be included simply by following the procedure in .

Those diagrams with Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) as the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ subdiagrams are excluded from the set of $`𝒢_{}^{(N+1)}`$ as discussing the first type of collinear configurations, since the identified gluon does not attach a line parallel to $`P_1`$. Consider the physical amplitude, in which the two on-shell quarks and one on-shell gluon carry the momenta $`\overline{\xi }P_1`$, $`xP_1`$ and $`l`$, respectively. Figure 4(a), describing the Ward identity, contains a complete set of contractions of $`l_\beta `$, since the second and third diagrams have been added back. The second and third diagrams in Fig. 4(a) lead to

$`l_\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\xi }\mathit{}_1\mathit{}}}\gamma ^\beta u(\overline{\xi }P_1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\xi }\mathit{}_1\mathit{}}}(\mathit{}\overline{\xi }\mathit{}_1+\overline{\xi }\mathit{}_1)u(\overline{\xi }P_1)=u(\overline{\xi }P_1),`$ (34)
$`l_\beta \overline{u}(xP_1)\gamma ^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{x\mathit{}_1\mathit{}}}=\overline{u}(xP_1),`$ (35)
respectively. The terms $`u(\overline{\xi }P_1)`$ and $`\overline{u}(xP_1)`$ at the ends of the above expressions correspond to the $`O(\alpha _s^N)`$ diagrams.

Figure 4(b) shows that the diagrams $`𝒢_{}^{(N+1)}`$ associated with the first term in Eq. (33) are factorized into the convolution of the parton-level $`O(\alpha _s^N)`$ diagrams $`𝒢^{(N)}`$ with the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ collinear piece extracted from Fig. 2(d). The double line represents the Wilson line. The first diagram means that the gluon momentum does not flow into $`𝒢^{(N)}`$, while in the second diagram the gluon momentum does. The similar reasoning applies to the identified gluon, one of whose ends attaches the outer most vertex of the lower $`\overline{u}`$ quark line. Substituting Eq. (31) into $`G^{(N)}(\xi ,b)`$ in the $`b`$ space on the right-hand side of Fig. 4(b), and following the procedure in , we arrive at

$`G^{(N+1)}(x,b)={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N+1}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi \varphi ^{(i)}(x,\xi ,b)H^{(N+1i)}(\xi ,b)},`$ (36)
with the infrared-finite $`O(\alpha _s^{N+1})`$ hard amplitude $`H^{(N+1)}`$. Equation (36) implies that all the collinear enhancements in the process $`\pi \gamma ^{}\gamma `$ can be factorized into the wave function in Eq. (23) order by order.

### C Gauge Invariance

We now demonstrate the gauge invariance of $`k_T`$ factorization theorem. Equation (23) is explicitly gauge-invariant because of the presence of the Wilson link from $`0`$ to $`y`$ . Below we argue that hard amplitudes in $`k_T`$ factorization are also gauge-invariant. Equation (11) approaches the collinear factorization under the approximation,

$`\varphi ^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)\varphi ^{(1)}(x,\xi ,0)\psi ^{(1)}(x,\xi ),`$ (37)
with $`\psi ^{(1)}(x,\xi )`$ being the distribution amplitude in collinear factorization. The integration of the hard amplitude $`H^{(0)}(\xi ,b)`$ over $`b`$ gives $`^{(0)}(\xi ,l_T=0)`$. Hence, we have the collinear factorization formula,

$`𝒢^{(1)}(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑\xi \psi ^{(1)}(x,\xi )^{(0)}(\xi )}+\psi ^{(0)}(x)^{(1)}(x),`$ (38)
where the summation over the diagrams has been suppressed. Since $`𝒢^{(1)}(x)`$, $`\psi ^{(1)}(x,\xi )`$, and $`^{(0)}(\xi )`$ are gauge-invariant in collinear factorization, $`^{(1)}(x)`$ is gauge-invariant. From Eq. (11), the gauge invariance of $`\varphi ^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)`$ stated above, together with the gauge invariance of $`𝒢^{(1)}(x)`$ and $`^{(1)}(x)`$, then imply the gauge invariance of $`H^{(0)}(\xi ,b)`$. Similarly, the $`k_T`$ factorization formula of $`O(\alpha _s^2)`$,

$`𝒢^{(2)}(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑\xi \frac{d^2b}{(2\pi )^2}\left[\varphi ^{(2)}(x,\xi ,b)H^{(0)}(\xi ,b)+\varphi ^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)H^{(1)}(\xi ,b)\right]}+\psi ^{(0)}(x)^{(2)}(x),`$ (39)
leads to the gauge invariance of $`H^{(1)}(\xi ,b)`$: Both $`𝒢^{(2)}(x)`$ and $`\psi ^{(0)}(x)^{(2)}(x)`$ are gauge-invariant in collinear factorization, and all $`\varphi ^{(i)}(x,\xi ,b)`$ are gauge-invariant as explained previously. The gauge invariance of $`H^{(0)}(\xi ,b)`$ stated above then implies the gauge invariance of $`H^{(1)}(\xi ,b)`$. Therefore, the hard amplitudes in $`k_T`$ factorization are gauge-invariant at all orders.

Equation (23) plays the role of an infrared regulator for parton-level diagrams. A hard amplitude then corresponds to the regularized parton-level diagrams. After determining the gauge-invariant infrared-finite hard amplitude $`H(x,b)`$, we convolute it with the physical two-parton pion wave function, whose all-order gauge-invariant definition is given by

$`\varphi (x,b)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixP_1^+y^{}}0|\overline{u}(y)\gamma _5\mathit{}_{}P\mathrm{exp}\left[ig_0^y𝑑sA(s)\right]u(0)|\pi (P_1)}.`$ (40)
The valence-quark state $`|\overline{u}(xP_1)u(\overline{x}P_1)`$ has been replaced by the pion state $`|\pi (P_1)`$, and the pion decay constant $`f_\pi `$ has been omitted. The relevant form factor $`F`$ for the process $`\pi \gamma ^{}\gamma `$ is then expressed as

$`F={\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{d^2b}{(2\pi )^2}\varphi (x,b)H(x,b)}.`$ (41)
We conclude that predictions derived from $`k_T`$ factorization theorem are gauge-invariant and infrared-finite.

$`k_T`$ factorization theorem for the pion form factor involved in the process $`\pi \gamma ^{}\pi `$ can be proved in the same way. The $`O(\alpha _s)`$ factorization is similar to the collinear factorization performed in . The only difference is the extra Fourier factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i𝐥_T𝐛)`$ associated with the diagrams, in which the loop momentum flows through the hard amplitude. Following the steps in Sec. II A, the eikonal line can be constructed from the diagrams with collinear gluons attaching the hard amplitude and the outgoing pion. The decomposition in Eq. (33) and the whole procedure presented above then apply. That is, the all-order proof is also similar to that of collinear factorization . Compared to the process $`\pi \gamma ^{}\gamma `$, the structures $`\gamma _5`$ and $`\gamma _5\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }`$ from the Fierz identity contribute, and the corresponding twist-3 pion wave functions appear.

## III FACTORIZATION of $`B\gamma (\pi )\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$

In this section we prove $`k_T`$ factorization theorem for the radiative decay $`B\gamma l\overline{\nu }`$, retaining the transverse degrees of freedom of internal particles, and construct the $`B`$ meson wave function in the impact parameter $`b`$ space. We shall discuss only the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ factorization, and demonstrate that the all-order factorization can be proved in a way similar to collinear factorization . The momentum $`P_1`$ of the $`B`$ meson and the momentum $`P_2`$ of the out-going on-shell photon are chosen as

$`P_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{\sqrt{2}}}(1,1,\mathrm{𝟎}_T),P_2={\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{\sqrt{2}}}(0,\eta ,\mathrm{𝟎}_T),`$ (42)
where the photon energy fraction $`\eta `$ is large enough to justify the applicability of PQCD. Assume that the light spectator quark in the $`B`$ meson carries the momentum $`k`$. In collinear factorization, only the plus component $`k^+`$ is relevant through the inner product $`kP_2`$ . The lowest-order diagrams for the $`B\gamma \mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay is displayed in Fig. 1, but with the upper quark (virtual photon) replaced by a $`b`$ quark ($`W`$ boson).

Bellow we shall concentrate on Fig. 1(a), because Fig. 1(b) is power-suppressed. Figure 1(a) gives the parton-level amplitude,

$`𝒢^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e\overline{u}(k)\mathit{ϵ̸}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2\mathit{}}{(P_2k)^2}}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b(P_1k),`$ (43)
which does not depend on a transverse momentum. Inserting the Fierz identity in Eq. (4) into to Eq. (43), we obtain Eq. (5) with

$`\psi ^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4P_1^+}}\overline{u}(k)\gamma _5\mathit{}_{}b(P_1k),`$ (44)
$`^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle \frac{tr[\mathit{ϵ̸}\mathit{}_2\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)\mathit{}_+\gamma ^5]P_1^+}{2xP_1P_2}},`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle \frac{tr[\mathit{ϵ̸}\mathit{}_2\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)(\mathit{}_1+M_B)(\mathit{}_+/\sqrt{2})\gamma ^5]}{2xP_1P_2}},`$ (46)
with the dimensionless vector $`n_+=(1,0,\mathrm{𝟎}_T)`$ on the light cone. We have dropped the higher-power term $`\mathit{}`$ in the numerator, and the momentum fraction $`x`$ is defined by $`x=k^+/P_1^+`$. For the $`B`$ meson wave functions, there are two leading-twist components associated with the structures $`\gamma _5\gamma ^\pm `$. For the $`B\gamma l\overline{\nu }`$ decay, we choose the structure $`\gamma _5\gamma ^+=\gamma _5\mathit{}_{}`$, since $`\mathit{ϵ̸}`$ in Eq. (46) involves $`\gamma _{}`$, and only the structure $`\gamma ^{}\gamma _5=\mathit{}_+\gamma _5`$ contributes to the hard amplitude.

Next we consider the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ radiative corrections to Fig. 1(a) shown in Figs. 2(a)-2(f). We discuss the factorization of the soft divergence from the loop momentum $`l^\mu (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$, where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ can be regarded as the $`B`$ meson and $`b`$ quark mass difference, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=M_Bm_b`$. The dependence of the $`B`$ meson wave function on the transverse momentum is generated by soft gluon exchanges. The analysis is similar to that in Sec. II, and we obtain Eq. (11). The factorization of the two-particle reducible diagrams in Fig. 2(a)-(c) is straightforward. Take Fig. 2(b) as an example, which gives the integrand,

$`I_b^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`ieg^2C_F\overline{u}(k)\gamma ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}\mathit{}}{(kl)^2}}\mathit{ϵ̸}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2\mathit{}+\mathit{}}{(P_2k+l)^2}}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5){\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_1\mathit{}+\mathit{}+m_b}{(P_1k+l)^2m_b^2}}\gamma _\nu b(P_1k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}.`$ (47)
Employing the eikonal approximation in the heavy-quark limit, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_1\mathit{}+\mathit{}+m_b}{(P_1k+l)^2m_b^2}}\gamma _\nu b(P_1k)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_\nu }{vl}}b(P_1k),`$ (48)
with the velocity $`v=P_1/M_B`$. The $`O(\alpha _s)`$ wave function extracted from Eq. (47) is then written as

$`\varphi _b^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2C_F}{4P_1^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\overline{u}(k)\frac{\gamma ^\nu (\mathit{}\mathit{})}{(kl)^2l^2}\gamma _5\mathit{}_{}b(P_1k)\frac{v_\nu }{vl}\delta \left(\xi x+\frac{l^+}{P_1^+}\right)e^{i𝐥_T𝐛}}.`$ (49)
The loop integrands associated with Figs. 2(d) and 2(e) are given by

$`I_d^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`ieg^2C_F\overline{u}(k)\mathit{ϵ̸}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2\mathit{}}{(P_2k)^2}}\gamma ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2\mathit{}+\mathit{}}{(P_2k+l)^2}}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5){\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_1\mathit{}+\mathit{}+m_b}{(P_1k+l)^2m_b^2}}\gamma _\nu b(P_1k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}},`$ (50)
$`I_e^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`ieg^2C_F\overline{u}(k)\gamma _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}\mathit{}}{(kl)^2}}\mathit{ϵ̸}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2\mathit{}+\mathit{}}{(P_2k+l)^2}}\gamma ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2\mathit{}}{(P_2k)^2}}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b(P_1k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}},`$ (51)
respectively. Neglecting the subleading terms proportional to $`\mathit{}`$ and $`\mathit{}`$ in the numerators in comparison with $`\mathit{}_2`$, we have the eikonal approximation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2\mathit{}}{(P_2k)^2}}\gamma ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2\mathit{}+\mathit{}}{(P_2k+l)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{}^\nu }{n_{}l}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P_2k)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(P_2k+l)^2}}\right]\mathit{}_2,`$ (52)
similar to Eq. (18). Inserting the Fierz identity, we extract the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ wave functions,

$`\varphi _d^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2C_F}{4P_1^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\overline{u}(xP_1)\gamma _5\mathit{}_{}b(P_1k)\frac{1}{l^2}\frac{n_{}v}{n_{}lvl}}`$ (54)
$`\times \left[\delta (\xi x)\delta \left(\xi x+{\displaystyle \frac{l^+}{P_1^+}}\right)e^{i𝐥_T𝐛}\right],`$
$`\varphi _e^{(1)}(x,\xi ,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2C_F}{4P_1^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\overline{u}(xP_1)\gamma _\nu \frac{\mathit{}\mathit{}}{(kl)^2}\gamma _5\mathit{}_{}b(P_1k)\frac{1}{l^2}\frac{n_{}^\nu }{n_{}l}}`$ (56)
$`\times \left[\delta (\xi x)\delta \left(\xi x+{\displaystyle \frac{l^+}{P_1^+}}\right)e^{i𝐥_T𝐛}\right].`$
The eikonal approximation in Eq. (48) has been applied. Figure 2(f) does not have the soft divergence due to the off-shell internal quark.

It is obvious that the above $`O(\alpha _s)`$ parton-level wave functions are similar to those derived in Sec. II: the eikonal line in $`n_{}`$ is the same as in collinear factorization, and the integrands contain the additional Fourier factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i𝐥_T𝐛)`$, when the loop momentum flows through the hard amplitude. The decomposition in Eq. (33) and the procedure for the all-order proof presented in Sec. II apply to the $`B\gamma l\overline{\nu }`$ decay. We construct a gauge-invariant light-cone $`B`$ meson wave function,

$`\varphi _+(x,b)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{dy^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixP_1^+y^{}}0|\overline{u}(y)\gamma _5\gamma ^+P\mathrm{exp}\left[ig_0^y𝑑sA(s)\right]b_v(0)|B(P_1)},`$ (57)
where $`b_v`$ is the rescaled $`b`$ quark field characterized by the velocity $`v`$. The lowest-order hard amplitude in the $`b`$ space is given by Eq. (28) with

$`^{(0)}(\xi ,l_T)`$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle \frac{tr[\mathit{ϵ̸}\mathit{}_2\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)(\mathit{}_1+M_B)(\mathit{}_+/\sqrt{2})\gamma ^5]}{2\xi P_1P_2+l_T^2}},`$ (58)
where the momentum fraction $`\xi `$ is defined by $`\xi =(k^+l^+)/P_1^+`$. The above expression can be derived by considering an off-shell $`\overline{u}`$ quark of the momentum $`(\xi P_1^+,0,𝐥_T)`$, and the leading structure $`(\mathit{}_1+M_B)(\mathit{}_+/\sqrt{2})\gamma ^5`$ associated with the $`B`$ meson, which is the same as in collinear factorization.

As emphasized in the Introduction, the semileptonic decay $`B\pi l\overline{\nu }`$, because of the end-point singularities (the failure of collinear factorization), demands $`k_T`$ factorization. Its all-order proof is also performed in the same way. Note that for this mode, both the leading-twist $`B`$ meson wave functions $`\varphi _\pm `$, associated with the structures $`\gamma _5\gamma ^\pm `$, contribute .

## IV DISCUSSION

We have explained that the range of a parton momentum fraction $`x`$ in exclusive processes, contrary to that in inclusive processes, is not experimentally controllable. Hence, the end-point region with a small $`x`$ is not avoidable. If a hard amplitude develops an end-point singularity in collinear factorization, implying the importance of the end-point region, $`k_T`$ factorization must be employed. Exclusive $`B`$ meson decays belong to this category, for which $`k_T`$ factorization is a more appropriate tool. We have proved $`k_T`$ factorization theorem for the processes $`\pi \gamma ^{}\gamma (\pi )`$ and $`B\gamma (\pi )l\overline{\nu }`$ in this paper. The proof performed in the impact parameter $`b`$ space indicates that collinear factorization is the $`b0`$ limit of $`k_T`$ factorization.

The prescriptions for determining wave functions and hard amplitudes in $`k_T`$ factorization theorem are summarized as follows:

$``$ A two-parton $`b`$-dependent wave function is factorized from parton-level diagrams in a way the same as in collinear factorization (for example, under the same eikonal approximation), but the loop integrand is associated with an additional Fourier factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i𝐥_T𝐛)`$, when the loop momentum $`l`$ flows through a hard amplitude.

$``$ A $`k_T`$-dependent hard amplitude is obtained in a way the same as in collinear factorization, but considering off-shell external partons, which carry the fractional momenta $`k=xP+𝐤_T`$ ($`k^2=k_T^2`$), $`P`$ being the external meson momenta. Then Fourier transform this hard amplitude into the $`b`$ space.

$``$ The insertion of the Fierz identity to separate the fermion flow between a wave function and a hard amplitude is the same as in collinear factorization. Take the process $`\pi \gamma ^{}\pi `$ discussed in Sec. II as an example. Up to the twist-3 accuracy for the initial pion, adopt the structures $`\gamma _5\gamma ^+`$, $`\gamma _5`$ and $`\gamma _5\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }`$ with $`\alpha ,\beta =\pm `$, i.e., without the $``$ components.

Under the above prescriptions, the Wilson link for the $`b`$-dependent wave function is the same as in collinear factorization, but with a shift $`𝐛`$ between the two pieces of paths along the light cone. Both the $`b`$-dependent two-parton meson wave functions and hard amplitudes are gauge-invariant in $`k_T`$ factorization, without introducing three-parton wave functions. Therefore, predictions for a physical quantity obtained from $`k_T`$ factorization theorem are gauge-invariant. For inclusive processes in small $`x_B`$ physics, the gauge invariance of the unintegrated gluon distribution function and of the hard subprocess of reggeized gluons, being also off-shell by $`k_T^2`$, is ensured in a similar way. The distinction is that the structures of $`\gamma `$-matrices from the Fierz identity are replaced by eikonal vertices, which contain only the longitudinal components .

There are more differences between the $`k_T`$ factorizations of inclusive and exclusive processes. Inclusive processes involve a single scale, and only single logarithms. Exclusive processes involve two scales (when a valence parton is soft, another is fast), and double logarithms. That is, no rapidity ordering is assumed . Hence, the required resummation techniques are different. The definition of meson wave functions constructed in this work serves as the starting point of $`k_T`$ resummation . The resultant Sudakov factor smears the end-point singularity in the semileptonic decay $`B\pi l\overline{\nu }`$ by increasing the magnitude of $`k_T`$ though infinite many gluon exchanges. The perturbative expansion of decay amplitudes then makes sense. Certainly, this conclusion needs to be justified by evaluating next-to-leading-order corrections in $`\alpha _s`$ in $`k_T`$ factorization theorem. If higher-order contributions converge quickly enough, the PQCD approach to exclusive $`B`$ meson decays will be theoretically solid.

In our next work we shall construct $`k_T`$ factorization of two-body nonleptonic $`B`$ meson decays. Below we briefly compare the phenomenological consequences for these decays derived from collinear and $`k_T`$ factorizations, mentioning only the CP asymmetry in $`B_d^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode. According to the power counting rules of QCDF  based on collinear factorization, the factorizable emission diagram in Fig. 5(a) gives the leading contribution of $`O(\alpha _s^0)`$, since the $`B\pi `$ form factor $`F^{B\pi }`$ is not calculable. Because Fig. 5(a) is real, the strong phase arises from the factorizable annihilation diagram in Fig. 5(b), being of $`O(\alpha _sm_0/M_B)`$, and from the vertex correction in Fig. 5(c), being of $`O(\alpha _s)`$. For $`m_0/M_B`$ slightly smaller than unity, Fig. 5(c) is the leading source of strong phases in collinear factorization (QCDF). In $`k_T`$ factorization the power counting rules change. The factorizable emission diagram is calculable and of $`O(\alpha _s)`$ as indicated in Fig. 5(d). The factorizable annihilation diagram has the same power counting as for Fig. 5(b). The vertex correction becomes of $`O(\alpha _s^2)`$ as shown in Fig. 5(e). Therefore, Fig. 5(b) contributes the leading strong phase in $`k_T`$ factorization (PQCD). The strong phases from Fig. 5(b) and 5(c) are opposite in sign, and the former has a large magnitude. This is the reason QCDF prefers a small and positive CP asymmetry $`C_{\pi \pi }`$ , while PQCD prefers a large and negative $`C_{\pi \pi }30\%`$ . It is expected that in the near future the two different approaches to exclusive $`B`$ meson decays, based on collinear and $`k_T`$ factorizations, could be distinguished by experiments .

We thank J. Kodaira, Y. Koike, T. Morozumi, G. Sterman, and K. Tanaka for useful discussions. The work was supported in part by the National Science Council of R.O.C. under Grant No. NSC-91-2112-M-001-053, by the National Center for Theoretical Sciences of R.O.C., and by Theory Group of KEK, Japan.

FIG. 1 Lowest-order diagrams for the process $`\pi \gamma ^{}\gamma `$.

FIG. 2 $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections to Fig. 1(a).

FIG. 3 The path for the Wilson link in a $`b`$-dependent two-parton meson wave function.

FIG. 4 (a) Ward identity. (b) Factorization of $`𝒢^{(N+1)}`$.

FIG. 5 Diagrams contributing to the $`B_d^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay.


format: text

text:
# 𝐶̌erenkov angle and charge reconstruction with the RICH detector of the AMS experiment

## 1 The AMS experiment

The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS)  is a precision spectrometer to be installed by 2005 in the International Space Station (ISS), where it will operate for a period of three years. Its main goals are the search for cosmic anti-matter, the search for dark matter and the measurement of the relative abundance of elements and isotopes in primary cosmic rays.

The future installation of AMS in the ISS was preceded by a 10 days engineering test flight aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery in June 1998, at a mean altitude of 370 km. Although the purpose of this experimental flight was the test of the spectrometer design principles, about 100 million events were collected enabling precise measurements of the spectra of high energy protons, electrons, positrons and helium nuclei .

The AMS spectrometer capabilities were extended with respect to those of the experimental flight, through the inclusion of new subdetector systems and the completion of others. The spectrometer design includes a superconducting magnet, a Time-of-Flight system (TOF), a Silicon Tracker, Veto Counters, a Transition Radiation Detector (TRD), an Electromagnetic Calorimeter (ECAL) and a Ring Imaging $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov Detector (RICH). It will be capable of measuring the rigidity ($`Rpc/|Z|e`$), the charge ($`Z`$), the velocity ($`\beta `$) and the energy ($`E`$) of cosmic rays within a geometrical acceptance of $`0.5m^2.sr`$. The tracking system, with a cylindrical shape, is made of 8 double sided silicon planes embedded inside a magnetic field of about $`0.9`$ Tesla and will provide both charge measurements and momentum measurements with a resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }p/p`$ of at most 2% up to 100 GeV/c/nucleon. The TOF system, made of four scintillator planes placed at the magnet end-caps, will provide a fast trigger, charge and velocity measurements for charged particles as well as information on their incidence direction. On the top of the spectrometer, the TRD will discriminate between leptons and hadrons, and, on the bottom, the ECAL will contribute to the $`e/p`$ separation and will measure the energy of the gamma rays crossing AMS. Figure 1 shows a schematic view of the AMS spectrometer.

The RICH detector will operate between the TOF and the ECAL subdetectors. It was designed to measure the velocity of singly charged particles with a resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta /\beta `$ of 0.1%, to extend the electric charge separation up to the Iron element and to contribute to the albedo rejection. Its acceptance is of $`0.4m^2.sr`$, that is, around 80% of the AMS acceptance. The RICH is a proximity focusing detector with a low refractive index radiator (aerogel) on the top and a pixelized photomultiplier matrix on the bottom, where the radiated $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov photons are collected. The active pixel size is of $`8.5mm`$. A conical shaped mirror surrounds the whole set, increasing the detector reconstruction efficiency. Constraints on the amount of heterogeneous matter in front of the downstream electromagnetic calorimeter have imposed a large non-active (empty) readout area in the detection plane. For a more detailed description of the detector see reference  in these proceedings. Figure 2 shows a view of the RICH detector and of its dimensions.

## 2 Velocity reconstruction

A charged particle crossing the RICH radiator material of refractive index $`n`$, emits photons if its velocity ($`\beta `$) is larger than the velocity of light in that medium. The aperture angle of the emitted photons with respect to the radiating particle is known as the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov angle, $`\theta _c`$, and it is given by :

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _c=\frac{1}{\beta n}$$
(1)
It follows that the velocity of the particle, $`\beta `$, is straightforwardly derived from the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov angle reconstruction.

The emitted photons can suffer interactions in the aerogel radiator (Rayleigh scattering, absorption), can be reflected or absorbed on the mirror surface and can fall on the active area composed of solid light guides on top of the photomultipliers. As a consequence, the reconstruction of the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov angle has to deal with two kinds of photons; those which are only slightly deviated from the expected photon pattern due to the pixel granularity, radiator thickness and chromaticity effects, and, those which spread all over the detector, faked by photomultipliers noise and due to photon scattering. The former, corresponding to the Signal, produce the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov photon pattern. They are Gaussian distributed, with a width $`\sigma 0.5cm`$, reflecting essentially the uncertainty related to the pixel size. The latter, constitute an essentially flat background modulated by the geometry of the detection plane. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the hit residuals with respect to the expected $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov pattern for a 3 cm thick, 1.03 refractive index aerogel radiator.

The probability density function for a detected hit to belong to the pattern is therefore expressed as:

$$p=(1b)\frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{r_i}{\sigma }\right)^2\right]+\frac{b}{d}$$
(2)
where $`b`$ is the photon background fraction, $`b/d`$ is the background fraction per unit of distance ($`10^3/cm`$) and $`r_i`$ is the closest distance from the hit $`i`$ to the photon pattern.

Complex photon patterns can occur at the detector plane due to mirror reflected photons, as can be seen on figure 4.

The $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov angle reconstruction procedure relies on the information of the particle direction provided by the Tracker, which, once extrapolated to the radiator, provides an estimation of the mean photon emission vertex. The tagging of the hits signalling the passage of the particle through the solid light guides in the detection plane, provides an additional track element. This, can be used as an additional track selection criterion. The best value of $`\theta _c`$ will result from the maximization of a Likelihood function, built as the product of the probabilities that the detected hits belong to a given (hypothesis) $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov photon pattern ring,

$$L(\theta _c)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{nhits}{}}p_i\left[r_i(\theta _c)\right].$$
(3)
The RICH setup was fully simulated with GEANT3  for radiators with different thickness and refractive index. In order to trust the reconstruction, only events with at least 3 hits close (within $``$ 1.5cm) to the reconstructed photon pattern were selected. Figure 5 shows the reconstructed $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov angle for simulated protons with various momenta. The $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov angle single hit resolution, obtained with aerogel of 1.03 refractive index and 3 cm thick, was $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _c5mrad`$. This resulted in a velocity resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta /\beta `$ slightly better than 0.1% for protons ($`\beta 1`$) and better than 0.05% for helium nuclei.

## 3 Charge reconstruction

The $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov photons are uniformly emitted along the particle path inside the dielectric medium, $`L`$, and their number per unit of energy depends on the particle’s charge, $`Z`$, and velocity, $`\beta `$, and on the refractive index, $`n`$, according to the expression :

$$\frac{dN_\gamma }{dE}Z^2L\left(1\frac{1}{\beta ^2n^2}\right)$$
(4)
Various factors contribute to the loss of some of these photons in the RICH; radiator interactions ($`\epsilon _{rad}`$), geometrical acceptance ($`\epsilon _{geo}`$), light guide efficiency ($`\epsilon _{lg}`$) and photomultiplier quantum efficiency ($`\epsilon _{pmt}`$). Accordingly, the number of counted photoelectrons in the detector is given by:

$$n_{p.e.}N_\gamma \epsilon _{rad}\epsilon _{geo}\epsilon _{lg}\epsilon _{pmt}$$
(5)
All the efficiency factors, but the PMT efficiency, depend on the particle direction and of its incidence point on the radiator. The radiator factor depends on the distance, $`d`$, traversed by the photons inside the radiator. It is calculated by integrating the probability of a photon not to interact in the radiator, $`\overline{p}_\gamma =e^{d(z,\phi )/L_{int}}`$, along the radiator thickness and along the photon azimuthal angle ($`\phi `$). The geometrical acceptance accounts for photons lost through the radiator walls or totally reflected on media transitions, photons absorbed by the mirror and photons falling into the non-active detection area. It is calculated taking into account the portion of the visible photon pattern in units of photon azimuthal angle, $`\epsilon _{geo}=\mathrm{\Delta }\phi /2\pi `$. Figure 6 shows the geometrical acceptance calculated for an aerogel radiator of 1.030 and for events within the AMS fiducial volume. The extreme variation of $`\epsilon _{geo}`$ from event to event is clear. The light guide efficiency factor depends on the incidence angle of the photons ($`\theta _\gamma `$) on the top of the light guide. It is calculated using the probability of a given photon to get to the photomultiplier cathode once it entered the light guide, and by integrating it along the reconstructed photon pattern.

The charge of the radiating particles is derived from the number of photoelectrons, $`n_{p.e.}`$, close to the previously reconstructed photon pattern (see section 2). The number of radiated photons is obtained by correcting $`n_{p.e.}`$ by the overall event efficiency, which can be written as:

$`\epsilon _{tot}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi H_{rad}}}{\displaystyle _0^{H_{rad}}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{n_{paths}}{}}}\rho _i`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\phi _i^{min}}^{\phi _i^{max}}}𝑑\phi \left[e^{\frac{d(z,\phi )}{L_{int}}}\epsilon _{lg}(\theta _\gamma )\epsilon _{pmt}\right]`$ (6)
where $`H_{rad}`$ is the radiator thickness, $`n_{paths}`$ is the number of visible branches constituting the reconstructed pattern (i.e. reflected and direct branches) and $`\rho _i`$ being the reflectivity for the $`i^{th}`$ path.

The charge is then calculated according to expression 4, where the normalisation constant can be evaluated from a calibrated beam of charged particles. In the case of the present results it was obtained from 10000 simulated helium nuclei events. Figure 7 shows the reconstructed charge for elements ranging from Helium to Nitrogen. It was obtained using a 3 cm thick, 1.03 refractive index aerogel radiator, for events with geometrical acceptance greater than 60%. The charge resolution ranges from $`\mathrm{\Delta }Z/Z15\%`$ for Helium to $`\mathrm{\Delta }Z/Z5.5\%`$ for Nitrogen.

## 4 Conclusions

AMS is a spectrometer designed for anti-matter, dark matter searches and for measuring relative abundances of nuclei and isotopes. Its installation in the International Space Station is scheduled to 2005, where it will operate for a 3 year period. The instrument will be equipped with a proximity focusing RICH detector based on an aerogel radiator, enabling velocity measurements with a resolution of about 0.1% and extending the charge measurements up to the Iron element. The velocity of the cosmic rays is measured through the reconstruction of the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov angle using a maximum Likelihood approach. The method consists on finding the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov angle maximising the overall probability of the detected hits to belong to its correspon ding pattern. Charge reconstruction is made in an event-by-event basis. It is based both on the velocity reconstruction procedure, which provides a reconstructed photon pattern, and on a semi-analytical calculation of the overall efficiency to detect the radiated $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$erenkov photons belonging to the reconstructed photon ring.


text:
# First-principles Calculation of Superconductivity in Hole-doped LiBC: 𝑇_𝑐=65 K

## Abstract

The lattice dynamical properties of LixBC are calculated for several values of $`x`$ using density functional perturbation theory. We find that the electron-phonon coupling parameter $`\lambda `$ increases monotonically with decreasing $`x`$ to a maximum value of 1.4 for $`x=0.125`$ owing to the increasing radius of multiply-nested Fermi surface cylinders. The B-C bond-stretching phonon modes have frequencies which are 28% higher than the equivalent modes in MgB2. This combination results in a $`T_c`$ of about 65 K for $`x=0.5`$.

It has been suggested recently that hole doped LiBC may have a superconducting transition temperature similar to or exceeding that of the isovalent compound MgB2 Rosner02 ; Ravindran01 . Experimental confirmation of this would be of great significance since MgB2 already has an exceptionally high transition temperature of $`40`$ K. Since the discovery of superconductivity in MgB2 Nagamatsu01  there has been a flurry of interest in it and compounds with similar features, namely, layered crystals with weak interlayer interactions, a corresponding high density of states at the Fermi energy and strong in-plane covalent bonds which are partially filled An01 ; Choi02 ; Rosner02b ; Bohnen01 ; Chen01 ; Okatov01 ; Shein01 ; Kurmaev02 ; Joas02 ; Profeta02b ; Singh01 ; Belashchenko01 ; Yildirim01 ; Kortus01 . LiBC has a hexagonal structure with alternating lithium and boron-carbon planes. Although it is semi-conducting owing to the alternating B-C atoms within each plane Rosner02 , the addition of holes, likely to be accomplished by the removal of Li atoms, cause it to become metallic and thus potentially superconducting. To date no such effect has been observed experimentally which is the motivation for this article in which we report a first-principles calculation of the electron-phonon coupling in LixBC.

To obtain accurate results we employ a plane wave method with the analytic pseudopotentials of Hartwigsen, Goedecker and Hutter using the parameters quoted in their paper Hartwigsen98 . A kinetic energy cut-off criterion of 24 Hartree was placed on the plane waves to ensure good convergence in terms of basis size. The density functional linear response method of Giannozzi et al. Giannozzi91  was used to calculate the phonon spectra and corresponding self-consistent linearized potentials within the local density approximation Ceperley80 ; Perdew81 . Dynamical matrices and linearized potentials were calculated in the irreducible Brillouin zone on a $`4\times 4\times 2`$ $`q`$-point mesh using the ground-state wave functions obtained on a $`8\times 8\times 4`$ $`k`$-point mesh. To incorporate hole doping we removed the appropriate number of electrons from the unit cell and added a positive uniform background to maintain charge neutrality. This approximation is justified from the results of Rosner, Kitaigorodsky and Pickett (RKP) Rosner02  who noted an almost rigid shift in the Fermi level with little renormalization of the electronic density of states upon removal of lithium atoms. The phonon spectra and electron-phonon coupling results were calculated for $`x=0.125`$, 0.25, 0.375, 0.5, 0.625, 0.75 and 0.875. We also performed a ground-state calculation on an even denser $`16\times 16\times 8`$ $`k`$-point mesh for producing the electron-phonon coupling matrices as well the Fermi surface plots in Fig. 1.

In Fig. 2 we plot the calculated phonon dispersions along high symmetry lines for each doping level. As is evidenced from the lack of singularities in the phonon curves, the material is found to be stable for all doping concentrations within the approximation of a uniform background. The most noteworthy feature in the spectra is the abrupt dip in the topmost branches between the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }M`$, $`K\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`AL`$ points. As with MgB2, these branches have the $`E_{2g}`$ symmetry character and the dip arises from the exceptionally strong nesting between concentric cylinders Kortus01  of the Fermi surfaces which are oriented in the direction of the $`c`$-axis as shown in Fig. 1. These nesting modes correspond to in-plane bond stretching between the boron and carbon atoms. With decreasing $`x`$ (i.e. increasing doping) the sharpness of the dip becomes less pronounced although the midpoint moves away from the central axis. Also of interest is the level attraction between certain phonon branches for $`x<0.5`$. This is reflected in the Fermi surface cylinders which change from being nearly circular for low doping to hexagonal for high doping. This flattening of the sheets results in additional translational symmetries in the effective potential. The C-B bond-stretching modes have phonon frequencies around 1000 cm-1 which is considerably higher than the B-B frequencies of MgB2 which are about 725 cm-1 Yildirim01 .

The phonon density of states are plotted in Fig. 3. At low doping levels there is a double peak structure between 200 and 400 cm-1 as well as peaks at 620 and 1000 cm-1. As the doping level is raised the lower peaks merge together and the higher frequency peaks become much less pronounced. The gap-like structure in the density of states between 400 and 600 cm-1 disappears with increased doping.

We now turn to calculation of the superconducting transition temperature. Details of Migdal-Eliashberg theory which is the basis for these calculations can be found in Ref. Allen82 . The electron-phonon interaction matrix is determined from the linearized self-consistent potential $`\delta V_𝐪^{\mathrm{SCF}}`$ by

$`g_{𝐤+𝐪v^{},𝐤v}^{𝐪j}=\varphi _{𝐤+𝐪v^{}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_i\omega _{𝐪j}}}}𝐞_{𝐪j;i}\delta V_{𝐪;i}^{\mathrm{SCF}}\right|\varphi _{𝐤v},`$ (1)
where $`M_i`$ is the mass of the $`i`$’th ion, $`\varphi _{𝐤v}`$ is a single-particle state and $`𝐞_{𝐪j;i}`$ is the eigenvector of phonon mode $`𝐪j`$ and atom $`i`$. From this we obtain the phonon linewidth arising from the electron-phonon interaction by averaging over the Fermi surface

$`\gamma _{𝐪j}=2\pi \omega _{𝐪j}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤vv^{}}{}}|g_{𝐤+𝐪v^{},𝐤v}^{𝐪j}|^2\delta (ϵ_{𝐤v}ϵ_\mathrm{F})\delta (ϵ_{𝐤+𝐪v^{}}ϵ_\mathrm{F}),`$ (2)
where $`ϵ_{𝐤v}`$ is the Kohn-Sham Kohn65  eigenvalue and $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi energy. The central quantity in superconductivity theory is the electron-phonon spectral function $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$. This can be written in terms of the phonon linewidth by

$`\alpha ^2F(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi N_\mathrm{F}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{𝐪j}}{\omega _{𝐪j}}}\delta (\omega \omega _{𝐪j}),`$ (3)
where $`N_\mathrm{F}`$ is the density of states at the Fermi energy. The total electron-phonon coupling parameter is defined as the first reciprocal moment of $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$

$`\lambda =2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2F(\omega )}{\omega }}𝑑\omega .`$ (4)
Finally $`T_c`$ can be estimated from the McMillan equation McMillan68 ,

$`T_c={\displaystyle \frac{w_{\mathrm{log}}}{1.2}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1.04(1+\lambda )}{\lambda \mu ^{}(1+0.62\lambda )}}\right),`$ (5)
with $`\mu ^{}`$, the Morel-Anderson pseudopotential, representing Coulombic repulsion and the logarithmic average frequency given by

$`w_{\mathrm{log}}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\alpha ^2F(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\omega }{\omega }}\right\}.`$ (6)
The three main components in determining $`T_c`$ are therefore the density of states at the Fermi energy $`N_\mathrm{F}`$, the logarithmic average frequency $`w_{\mathrm{log}}`$ and the strength of the electron-phonon coupling on the Fermi surface. By plotting $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ we can gauge the relative strength of the coupling. This is done in Fig. 4. For most phonon-mediated superconductors the phonon density of states and $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ differ only slightly Savrasov96 . This is not the case here: the modes above 600 cm-1 which dominate in $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ are suppressed in the phonon density of states in Fig. 3. This is particularly evident for the peak at $`x=0.5`$ and $`\omega 600`$ cm-1 which corresponds to the weakly dispersed $`E_{2g}`$ branch in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }A`$ direction. We plot in Fig. 5 $`N_\mathrm{F}`$, $`w_{\mathrm{log}}`$, $`\lambda `$, and $`T_c`$ using an empirical value for $`\mu ^{}`$ of $`0.09`$ which was found to reproduce $`T_c`$ in MgB2 Rosner02 . The density of states at the Fermi energy increases sharply from $`x=1`$ to $`x=0.75`$. Beyond this $`N_\mathrm{F}`$ increases more gradually with a slight upturn at $`x=0.5`$ and has values between 15 and 21 states/spin/Hartree/unit cell. As hole concentration is raised $`w_{\mathrm{log}}`$ drops by about 25% from 802 K at $`x=0.875`$ to 608 K at $`x=0.125`$. There is also an inflection point at $`x=0.5`$ in this curve. The total electron-phonon coupling parameter $`\lambda `$ increases over the whole range to a maximum value of 1.43. This is a direct result of the increase with $`1x`$ of the Fermi surface nesting vector $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ which maps the opposing walls of the cylindrical sheets shown in Fig. 1. We again note an inflection point in $`\lambda `$ for $`x=0.5`$. From proportionality arguments, RKP obtained $`\lambda 1.5`$ for $`x=0.5`$ which is larger than the 1.20 found here. Nonetheless, this is substantially larger than $`\lambda =0.82`$ found in MgB2 Kong01 ; Bohnen01 ; Yildirim01 ; Liu01 . Despite the fairly large increase in $`\lambda `$ over the whole range of $`x`$, $`T_c`$ reaches a plateau of 65 K at $`x=0.5`$. The reason for this is the drop in $`w_{\mathrm{log}}`$ as a function of $`1x`$ which enters as a proportionality in Eq. 5 as well as the saturation of $`N_\mathrm{F}`$ for $`x<0.75`$. The highest value for $`T_c`$ is 68 K at $`x=0.125`$, this is substantially higher than that observed for MgB2 but lower than the $`100`$ K estimated by RKP.

In conclusion, we find from our first-principles calculations that hole-doped LiBC is a superconductor with exceptionally strong in-plane coupling. As with MgB2 this is due to a small number of phonon modes close to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point which scatter electrons at the Fermi surface from one side of a cylindrical sheet to another. Although the superconducting transition temperature is much higher than in MgB2, the decrease in the average phonon frequency as the doping concentration is raised limits the potential gain in $`T_c`$ from the increase in $`\lambda `$ and we note that hole doping beyond $`x=0.5`$ will not result in any substantial improvement $`T_c`$. Nonetheless, going by these results, LixBC may be an impressive superconductor well worth further investigation.

We would like to acknowledge the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT), the Austrian Science Fund (Project P13430) and the EXCITING network (Contract HPRN-CT-2002-00317) for financial support.


text:
# The would-be majoron in R-parity-violating supersymmetry

## I Introduction

Recent data that exhibits neutrino mixing phenomena implies that the lepton sector of the Standard Model must be extended review . The simplest extension involves adding right handed neutrinos, and then tuning the neutrino masses to be less than $`𝒪(1\mathrm{eV})`$ (if neutrinos are Dirac fermions) or by invoking the seesaw mechanism (if neutrinos are Majorana fermions). In low-energy supersymmetric models, it is possible to introduce neutrino masses in a phenomenologically acceptable way without adding right-handed neutrinos. One simply allows for renormalizable terms that violate lepton number (L), while imposing baryon number (B) invariance. This can be achieved by replacing R-parity of the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM) with a $`𝐙_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ triality triality . This model provides an alternative framework for neutrino masses. Eventually, one must try to understand why the L-violating parameters of the model are small enough to yield neutrino masses at the observed level Banks .

In the B-conserving, L-violating alternative to the MSSM, the L-violating terms are explicit. One can also generate L-violation directly in the MSSM if one of the sneutrinos acquires a vacuum expectation value susynu . In the latter case, L is spontaneously broken, which implies that a massless Goldstone boson, the majoron, must exist in the spectrum originalmajoron . Since the sneutrino is an electroweak doublet, one can show that the spectrum must also include a very light CP-even scalar partner to the CP-odd majoron lightscalar .111This is a feature of both the non-supersymmetric and supersymmetric doublet majoron models. Models of this type are excluded since the decay of the $`Z`$ into the majoron and its CP-even scalar partner is not observed susymajoron ; lightscalar . Thus, any viable L-violating supersymmetric model whose field content is identical to that of the MSSM must possess explicit L-violating terms. There are also ways to extend the model of spontaneous L-violating supersymmetry by adding additional chiral superfields (including electroweak singlets) such that the majoron is dominantly a singlet and all other scalar masses lie above $`m_Z`$ sing-maj . However, such models lie outside the scope of this paper.

We consider the most general L-violating low-energy supersymmetric model, with the MSSM field content. In addition to the effects of the explicit L-violating terms, one must also consider the L-violating effect that depends on the vacuum expectation values of the sneutrino fields. Of course, the latter is basis-dependent, and it is often convenient to define the Higgs field such that the orthogonal physical sneutrino fields have no vacuum expectation value. However, other choices are possible, which suggests that the model can be viewed as a model of spontaneously-broken lepton number with additional explicit L-violating terms. Since models of spontaneously-broken lepton number possess a massless majoron, when explicit L-violating terms are included, the majoron acquires a squared-mass proportional to the relevant explicit lepton-number-violating term. Two questions immediately arise: (i) how do we identify the would-be majoron? and (ii) if explicit lepton-number violation is very small (which is needed to explain the magnitude of neutrino masses), how does one avoid a very light would-be majoron? These questions have been previously examined in the literature gato ; comelli . In this short note, we revisit both these questions and demonstrate how they can be addressed in a basis-independent formalism Dav ; ghbasis .

## II The scalar potential and minimum conditions

In the notation of ref. GHrpv , the contribution of the neutral scalar fields to the scalar potential, before imposing L-conservation, is

$`V_{\mathrm{neutral}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_U^2+|\mu |^2\right)|h_U|^2+\left[(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{\alpha \beta }+\mu _\alpha \mu _\beta ^{}\right]\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\nu }_\beta ^{}\left(b_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\nu }_\alpha h_U+b_\alpha ^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\alpha ^{}h_U^{}\right)`$
$`+\frac{1}{8}(g^2+g^2)\left[|h_U|^2|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\alpha |^2\right]^2,`$
where $`h_U`$ is the neutral component of the up-type scalar doublet, and we have combined the neutral component of the down-type scalar doublet, $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_0h_D`$ and the three sneutrinos, $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i`$ into a generalized sneutrino field $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\alpha `$, where $`\alpha =0,\mathrm{},n_g`$ (for $`n_g=3`$ generations). In minimizing the full scalar potential, we assume that only neutral scalar fields acquire vacuum expectation values: $`h_U\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}v_u`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\alpha \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}v_\alpha `$. From eq. (II), the minimization conditions are:

$`(m_U^2+|\mu |^2)v_u^{}`$ $`=`$ $`b_\alpha v_\alpha \frac{1}{8}(g^2+g^2)(|v_u|^2|v_d|^2)v_u^{},`$ (2)
$`\left[(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{\alpha \beta }+\mu _\alpha \mu _\beta ^{}\right]v_\beta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`b_\alpha v_u+\frac{1}{8}(g^2+g^2)(|v_u|^2|v_d|^2)v_\alpha ^{},`$ (3)
where

$$|v_d|^2\underset{\alpha }{}|v_\alpha |^2.$$
(4)
The normalization of the vacuum expectation values has been chosen such that

$$v(|v_u|^2+|v_d|^2)^{1/2}=\frac{2m_W}{g}=246\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(5)
It is convenient to introduce two additional quantities. We define:

$$M_{\alpha \beta }^2(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{\alpha \beta }+\mu _\alpha \mu _\beta ^{}\frac{1}{8}(g^2+g^2)(v_u^2v_d^2)\delta _{\alpha \beta }.$$
(6)
Using this quantity, we can simplify the second minimum condition \[eq. (3)\] which now reads222Note that one can always choose the vacuum expectation values $`v_u`$ and $`v_\alpha `$ real by suitable phase re-definitions of the scalar fields. Henceforth, we assume that all vacuum expectation values are taken to be real.

$$M_{\alpha \beta }^2v_\beta ^{}=v_ub_\alpha .$$
(7)
It is also useful to define the vector $`c_\alpha `$ as follows

$$M_{\alpha \beta }^2b_\beta =|b|^2c_\alpha ,$$
(8)
where $`|b|^2_\alpha b_\alpha ^{}b_\alpha `$.

## III Spontaneous Lepton Number Violation in the MSSM

We begin by considering the possibility of spontaneous L-violation in low-energy R-parity-conserving (RPC) supersymmetry consisting only of the MSSM fields. We impose L-conservation on the MSSM Lagrangian, which constrains the scalar potential \[eq. (II)\]. In the usual basis choice in which $`h_D`$ is a Higgs field and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_j`$ ($`j=1,2,3`$) are the lepton number carrying sneutrino fields, it follows that $`\mu _\alpha =(\mu ,0,0,0)`$, $`b_\alpha =(b,0,0,0)`$, and $`(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{j0}=(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{0j}=0`$. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_0h_D`$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_j`$ transform the same way under the SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) gauge symmetry, but are distinguished by their L quantum numbers: $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_0`$ is neutral while the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_j`$ possess non-zero L. Hence if any of the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_j`$ acquire a vacuum expectation values, L will be spontaneously broken. Noting that $`M_{j0}^2=M_{0j}^2=0`$ in the basis defined above, eq. (7) implies that $`M_{ij}^2v_j=0`$. Thus, if at least one of the $`v_j`$ is non-zero, it follows that $`\mathrm{det}M^2=0`$. This is a necessary (basis-independent) condition for spontaneous lepton number violation.

We assume that $`v_u0`$ and $`v_00`$.333If $`v_1=0`$, then eqs. (2) and (3) simply reduce to the usual RPC MSSM equations for $`v_u`$ and $`v_d=v_0`$. If we had assumed that $`v_u=v_0=0`$, then one finds that lepton number is spontaneously broken with $`v_1^2=8(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{11}/(g^2+g^2)`$. In this case, there is a consistent solution if $`(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{11}<0`$. However, a model with $`v_u=v_0=0`$ would not generate any quark masses, so we will not consider this case any further. Without loss of generality, we may perform a rotation of the sneutrino fields among the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_j`$ such that $`v_10`$ while $`v_2=v_3=0`$. It then follows from eqs. (2) and (3) that:

$`(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{11}=\frac{1}{8}(g^2+g^2)(v_u^2v_0^2v_1^2),`$ (9)
$`(m_U^2+(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{11}+|\mu |^2)v_u=bv_0,`$ (10)
$`(m_D^2(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{11}+|\mu |^2)v_0=bv_u,`$ (11)
where $`m_D^2(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{00}`$. These equations have a consistent solution for non-zero $`v_u`$, $`v_0`$ and $`v_1`$ only if

$$(m_U^2+(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{11}+|\mu |^2)(m_D^2(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{11}+|\mu |^2)=b^2.$$
(12)
For this very particular choice of parameters, the quantities $`v_u/v_0`$ and $`v_u^2v_0^2v_1^2`$ are fixed, but this is not enough information to determine all three vacuum expectation values uniquely at tree-level. That is, there is a flat direction in the scalar potential at tree-level. Ref. gato  demonstrates that by considering the renormalization group evolution of the potential parameters, there is generically some momentum scale $`Q_0`$ for which eq. (12) is satisfied. Then, when the one-loop effective potential is evaluated, the flat direction is lifted and the undetermined vacuum expectation value is fixed via dimensional transmutation in terms of $`Q_0`$. The parameters of the model must be tuned to get the observed $`Z`$ mass, $`m_Z^2=\frac{1}{4}(g^2+g^2)(v_u^2+v_0^2+v_1^2)`$, as well as the correct hierarchy $`v_1v`$ needed to explain the light neutrino mass.

If lepton number is spontaneously broken, then there must be a massless Goldstone boson—the majoron originalmajoron . We shall exhibit this explicitly in the case above where eq. (12) holds. For simplicity, we assume that the model is CP-conserving.444In a basis where the vacuum expectation values are real, it then follows that $`\mu _\alpha `$, $`b_\alpha `$ and $`(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{\alpha \beta }`$ are real. We can then compute CP-even and CP-odd scalar squared-mass matrices. In ref. ghbasis , we showed that after removing the Goldstone boson that gives mass to the $`Z`$, the CP-odd scalar squared-mass matrix in a general L-violating model is given by

$$M_{\mathrm{odd}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v^2(vb)/(v_uv_d^2)& vb_\beta X_{\beta i}/v_d\\ vX_{j\alpha }b_\alpha /v_d& X_{j\alpha }M_{\alpha \beta }^2X_{\beta i}\end{array}\right),$$
(13)
where $`vbv_\alpha b_\alpha `$ and the $`X_{\beta i}`$ are chosen so that the set $`\{v_\beta /v_d,X_{\beta i}\}`$ forms an orthonormal set of vectors in an $`(n_g+1)`$-dimensional vector space (for $`n_g`$ generations). In our notation, $`X_{j\alpha }X_{\alpha j}^T`$, where the superscript $`T`$ denotes the matrix transpose. The following relations will be useful:

$$v_\alpha X_{\alpha i}=0,X_{\alpha i}X_{\alpha j}=\delta _{ij},X_{\alpha i}X_{\beta i}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\frac{v_\alpha v_\beta }{v_d^2}.$$
(14)
To show that there is a majoron in the case of spontaneously broken L, we exhibit the eigenvector of $`M_{\mathrm{odd}}^2`$ with zero eigenvalue. Consider the eigenvector:555Although the cross product technically exists only in three dimensions, the dot product of two cross products can be expressed in terms of dot products and thus exists in any number of dimensions. For example, $`|v\times b|^2=v_d^2b^2(vb)^2`$. Note that by assumption in this calculation, $`b_\alpha =(b,0,0,0)`$ and $`v_\alpha =(v_0,v_1,0,0)`$ with $`v_10`$. Hence $`|v\times b|^20`$.

$$J_\beta \left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{v_u}{v}\\ \\ \frac{v_d(vb)b_\rho X_{\rho i}}{|v\times b|^2}\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
A simple calculation shows that $`(M_{\mathrm{odd}}^2)_{\alpha \beta }J_\beta =0`$ \[after applying eq. (7)\], if

$$(vb)M_{\alpha \beta }^2b_\beta v_ub^2b_\alpha =0.$$
(16)
It is easy to check that eq. (16) is satisfied under the assumption of L conservation of the MSSM Lagrangian.666L conservation implies that one can choose a basis in which $`M_{0j}^2=M_{j0}^2=b_j=0`$. Eq. (7) then implies that $`M_{00}^2=v_ub/v_0`$. It is interesting to note that eq. (16) can be written more simply as $`b_\alpha =(vb/v_u)c_\alpha `$, where $`c_\alpha `$ is defined in eq. (8). It then follows that $`|b\times c|^2=0`$, and we conclude that the necessary and sufficient basis independent condition for spontaneously broken lepton number is $`|b\times c|^2=0`$, with $`|v\times b|^20`$.777Note that from eq. (7), $`|v\times b|^2=0`$ implies that $`|b\times c|^2=0`$, but the converse is true only if $`M_{\alpha \beta }^2`$ is an invertible matrix. But, we noted previously that $`\mathrm{det}M^2=0`$ is a necessary condition for spontaneously broken lepton number.

We now turn to the CP-even scalar that is associated with the CP-odd majoron. Again following ref. ghbasis , the CP-even scalar squared-masses of the model can be determined by computing the eigenvalues of the following squared-mass matrix:

$$M_{\mathrm{even}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^22\beta & m_Z^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{cos}2\beta & 0\\ m_Z^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{cos}2\beta & m_Z^2\mathrm{sin}^22\beta +v^2(vb)/(v_uv_d^2)& vb_\beta X_{\beta i}/v_d\\ 0& vX_{j\alpha }b_\alpha /v_d& X_{j\alpha }M_{\alpha \beta }^2X_{\beta i}\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta v_u/v_d`$, with $`v_d`$ given by eq. (4). First, we note that if $`\mathrm{cos}2\beta =0`$, then there is a massless scalar state at tree-level in all circumstances (i.e., conserved L, spontaneously broken L or explicitly broken L). In the case of spontaneously broken L, we can identify this state as the massless scalar state associated with the majoron. Henceforth, we shall assume that $`\mathrm{cos}2\beta 0`$. Then, one can easily verify that the eigenvector

$$\rho _\beta \left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{v_u\mathrm{sin}2\beta }{v\mathrm{cos}2\beta }\\ \\ \frac{v_u}{v}\\ \\ \frac{v_d(vb)b_\rho X_{\rho i}}{|v\times b|^2}\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
satisfies $`(M_{\mathrm{even}}^2)_{\alpha \beta }\rho _\beta =0`$ provided that eq. (16) holds. That is, there exists a massless CP-even scalar at tree-level, $`\rho `$, associated with the massless majoron, $`J`$. When radiative corrections are incorporated, the mass of $`\rho `$ is not protected (it is not a Goldstone boson). Thus, $`\rho `$ gains a small mass of $`𝒪(v_1)`$. Nevertheless, the experimental absence of the decay $`ZJ\rho `$ implies that the model of spontaneously broken R-parity described above is ruled out.

## IV Explicit L-violation and the would-be majoron

We now consider the introduction of explicit L-violating terms. Clearly, the majoron eigenstate identified in eq. (15) is no longer an eigenstate of the CP-odd squared-mass matrix. But, to the extent that explicit L-violation is small, the majoron identified above is an approximate eigenstate, but with a non-zero mass. We denote this state as the would-be majoron. It is a simple matter to use first-order perturbation theory to compute its mass.

Suppose we write: $`M_{\mathrm{odd}}^2=M_{\mathrm{odd}}^{(0)2}+M_{\mathrm{odd}}^{(1)2}`$, where $`J_\beta `$ \[eq. (15)\] is the eigenvector of $`M_{\mathrm{odd}}^{(0)2}`$ with zero eigenvalue. Using first order perturbation theory, the squared-mass is computed by evaluating the expectation value of $`M_{\mathrm{odd}}^{(1)2}`$ with respect to the unperturbed normalized eigenvalue (i.e., $`J_\beta `$ normalized to unit length). Since the unperturbed majoron is massless, this is equivalent to computing the expectation value of the full squared-mass matrix $`M_{\mathrm{odd}}^2`$. Thus, the squared-mass of the would-be majoron, $`J`$, is

$$m_J^2=\frac{(M_{\mathrm{odd}}^2)_{\alpha \beta }J_\alpha J_\beta }{N_o^2},$$
(19)
where $`N_o^2_\alpha J_\alpha J_\alpha `$. After much algebraic simplification, the end result is:

$$m_J^2=\frac{v_d^2v^2(vb)\left[(vb)M_{\alpha \beta }^2b_\alpha b_\beta v_ub^4\right]}{|v\times b|^2\left[v_u^2|v\times b|^2+v^2(vb)^2\right]},$$
(20)
where $`b^2_\alpha b_\alpha b_\alpha `$. It is useful to define the basis-independent quantity:

$$v_L^2\frac{|v\times b|^2}{b^2}=v_d^2\frac{(vb)^2}{b^2}.$$
(21)
Note that in a basis where $`b_j=0`$, one obtains $`v_L^2v_d^2v_0^2=_iv_i^2`$. That is, $`v_Lv_d`$, assuming that L-violating effects are small. Hence, we can drop the first term relative to the second in the denominator of eq. (20). In addition, using the definition of $`c_\alpha `$ \[eq. (8)\], the above result can be further simplified. We then obtain:

$$m_J^2=\frac{v_d^2(v\times b)(b\times c)}{(vb)v_L^2}.$$
(22)
Note that if we go to the spontaneous L-violating limit in which $`|b\times c|=0`$ \[with $`v_L0`$\], one finds a massless majoron as expected. Further, in the case of explicit L violation, it is easy to check that $`v_L0`$.888In a basis where $`b_i=0`$, $`v_L=0`$ implies that $`v_i=0`$. Then from eq. (7) one obtains $`M_{i0}^2=0`$. In this case, barring the unlikely cancellation $`M_{i0}^2=(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{i0}+\mu _i\mu _0=0`$ for non-vanishing $`(M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{i0}`$ and $`\mu _i`$, it follows that the scalar potential is L-conserving in contradiction to our assumption. One notable feature of eq. (22) is that it provides a basis-independent expression for the mass of the would-be majoron.

Finally, we can address the puzzle of how the would-be majoron mass can be of $`𝒪(m_Z)`$ even if the explicit L-violation is small comelli . It is convenient to choose a basis in which $`b_i=0`$. Using the minimum condition \[eq. (7)\] and eq. (20), and assuming that $`v_Lv`$, we end up with:

$$m_J^2=\frac{\underset{ij}{}M_{ij}^2v_iv_j}{_iv_i^2}\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{v_L^2}{v^2}\right)\right].$$
(23)
To understand the physical implication of this result, let us choose the direction of $`v_i`$ to point along the $`k`$th direction. Then $`m_J^2=M_{kk}^2`$. But, in the limit of small explicit L-violation, $`M_{kk}^2`$ is the squared-mass of the $`k`$th sneutrino (in the RPC limit). Thus we have identified the would-be majoron as one of the sneutrinos. Since the model parameters can easily be chosen such that $`M_{kk}^2𝒪(v^2)`$, we see that there is no contradiction in having the would-be majoron mass of $`𝒪(v)`$, even in the limit of arbitrarily small explicit L breaking comelli . Nevertheless, the limit of vanishing explicit lepton number violation is smooth. In particular, note that for $`b_i=0`$, eq. (7) implies that $`M_{i0}^2v_0=M_{ij}^2v_j`$. In the limit of an L-conserving Lagrangian in which L is spontaneously broken, $`M_{i0}=0`$ while one of the $`v_i`$ is nonzero. This implies that $`M_{ij}^2v_iv_j=0`$ and the massless majoron is regained.

These results can also be understood in a basis-independent language using the results of eq. (22). The squared-mass of the would-be majoron is proportional to the dimensionless ratio of two small parameters, $`(v\times b)(b\times c)/[(vb)v_L^2]`$. The numerator is a consequence of explicit L-breaking and the denominator is proportional to the square of the sneutrino vacuum expectation value in the case of spontaneous L-breaking. Nevertheless, the ratio of these two small quantities can be $`𝒪(1)`$, in which case $`m_J`$ is of order the electroweak scale.

To see that this last result does not contradict our usual intuition about explicit symmetry breaking, consider for simplicity the one generation case. Then, we can write $`m_J^2=M_{11}^2=M_{10}^2v_0/v_1`$. We then see explicitly that $`m_J^2`$ is linear in the explicit L-violating parameter $`M_{10}^2`$. Nevertheless, in the limit of small $`M_{10}^2`$, because $`M_{10}^2/v_1`$ can be of the same order as $`v_0`$, it follows that $`m_J^2`$ can be of $`𝒪(v^2)`$ without an unnatural tuning of the parameters. A simple exercise shows that this is in accord with the expectations of Dashen’s formula dashen . For example, consider the linear O(4) sigma model chiral  consisting of $`\sigma `$ and $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝝅}`$, with the usual Mexican hat potential and corresponding vacuum expectation value $`v`$. If we now break the O(4) symmetry with $`_{\mathrm{break}}=a\sigma `$, then the Goldstone boson ($`\pi `$) acquires a mass that is linear in $`a`$ and is given by Dashen’s formula:

$$v^2m_\pi ^2=0|[Q,[Q,_{\mathrm{break}}]]|0=av,$$
(24)
where $`Q`$ is the Noether symmetry charge and $`v=0|\sigma |0`$ is the vacuum expectation value in the absence of explicit symmetry breaking. Thus, $`m_\pi ^2=a/v`$, which has the same behavior as $`m_J^2M_{10}^2/v_1`$. Of course, in QCD the relevant chiral symmetry breaking parameters are such that $`m_\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }4\pi v`$ georgi . In contrast, one must choose $`M_{10}^2𝒪(v_0v_1)`$ in order to ensure that the sneutrino mass is of order the electroweak scale (light sneutrinos are ruled out by the absence of $`Z`$ decay into sneutrino pairs).

For completeness, we evaluate the mass of the CP-even scalar $`\rho `$ associated with the majoron when explicit L violation is introduced. Following the method of computation of $`m_J^2`$, we again use first-order perturbation theory. Writing $`M_{\mathrm{even}}^2=M_{\mathrm{even}}^{(0)2}+M_{\mathrm{even}}^{(1)2}`$, and using the fact that $`\rho _\beta `$ \[eq. (18)\] is an eigenvector of $`M_{\mathrm{even}}^{(0)2}`$ with zero eigenvalue, it follows that

$$m_\rho ^2=\frac{(M_{\mathrm{even}}^2)_{\alpha \beta }\rho _\alpha \rho _\beta }{N_e^2},$$
(25)
where $`N_e^2_\alpha \rho _\alpha \rho _\alpha `$. The end result is:

$$m_\rho ^2=\frac{v_d^2v^2(vb)(v\times b)\left[(vb)M_{\alpha \beta }^2b_\alpha b_\beta v_ub^4\right]\mathrm{cos}^22\beta }{|v\times b|^2\left[v_u^2|v\times b|^2+v^2(vb)^2\mathrm{cos}^22\beta \right]}.$$
(26)
As noted previously \[see discussion below eq. (17)\], if $`\mathrm{cos}2\beta =0`$, then $`m_\rho =0`$ is an exact tree-level result, even in the presence of L-violating terms. Assuming that $`|\mathrm{cos}2\beta |v_L/v`$ and that L-violating effects are small, we may again drop the first term relative to the second in the denominator of eq. (26). As before, we obtain:

$$m_\rho ^2=\frac{v_d^2(v\times b)(b\times c)}{(vb)v_L^2}.$$
(27)
That is,

$$m_\rho ^2=m_J^2\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{v_L^2}{v^2}\right)\right].$$
(28)
Following the discussion below eq. (23), we identify $`\rho `$ as a sneutrino (in the RPC limit). Moreover, since $`\rho `$ and $`J`$ are degenerate in the RPC limit, these two real scalars can be combined to make a (complex) sneutrino state of definite lepton number ghprl .

At tree-level, the squared-mass splitting, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2m_\rho ^2m_J^2`$ is non-zero when explicit L-violation is present. The analysis above seems to imply that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2𝒪(v_L^2/v^2)`$. However, an explicit expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ to first order in $`v_L^2/v^2`$ would require a second-order perturbation theory computation of $`m_J^2`$ and $`m_\rho ^2`$. In the presence of explicit L-violation, if $`m_J`$, $`m_\rho 𝒪(v)`$ then we may use the results of ref. ghbasis  to obtain a basis-independent expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. This case corresponds to sneutrino masses of order the electroweak scale, and we indeed verify that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2𝒪(v_L^2/v^2)`$. On the other hand, if $`m_J`$, $`m_\rho v`$, then the results of ref. ghbasis  do not directly apply, since there is an independent small parameter which must be treated consistently in the expansion around the L-conserving limit. In this case, the tree-level value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ can be significantly smaller than $`𝒪(v_L^2/v^2)`$. Consequently, one must not neglect the radiative corrections that could end up as the dominant contribution to the squared-mass difference.

## V Conclusions

In models of R-parity-violating supersymmetry, there is no longer a distinction between the hypercharge $`Y=1`$ Higgs superfield and the lepton superfields. In computing physical quantities involving the scalar Higgs and slepton sectors, one can either choose a basis in the generalized Higgs-lepton flavor space or employ basis-independent techniques. For example, one could choose to define the Higgs field direction so that the neutral slepton vacuum expectation values vanish. However, in this case, the distinction between spontaneous lepton number violation (typically associated with non-zero sneutrino vacuum expectation values) and explicit lepton number violation is unclear. By employing basis-independent methods, we are able to provide an unambiguous condition for the existence of spontaneous lepton number violation.

In the latter case, the spectrum contains a massless Goldstone boson—the CP-odd majoron. The simplest models of this type also predict the existence of a very light CP-even scalar partner. Such models are ruled out by precision $`Z`$ decay data. Thus, any realistic L-violating model (based solely on the superfields of the MSSM) must contain some explicit L-breaking. The would-be majoron acquires a squared-mass that depends linearly on the explicit L-breaking squared-mass parameter. We demonstrate how to compute the mass of the would-be majoron using basis-independent techniques, and identify this CP-odd scalar and its CP-even scalar partner as approximate sneutrino states. Finally, we have shown how it is possible for the mass of the would-be majoron and its CP-even scalar partner to be of $`𝒪(v)`$ despite the fact that the explicit L-violation must be small enough to account for neutrino masses less than of $`𝒪(\mathrm{eV})`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Sacha Davidson for useful discussions. H.E.H. is grateful for the hospitality and support of Oxford University, where this work was initiated. In addition, we acknowledge the Aspen Center for Physics and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, where this work was subsequently carried out. Y.G. was supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation under Grant No. 237/01 and in part by the United States–Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) through Grant No. 2000133. H.E.H. is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant no. DE-FG03-92ER40689.