text:
# SUPERSYMMETRY CONTRIBUTION TO BOTTOM QUARK PRODUCTION AT HADRON COLLIDERS

## 1 Motivation and Constraints

The cross section for bottom-quark production at hadron collider energies exceeds the central value of predictions of next-to-leading order (NLO) perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD) by about a factor of two $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This longstanding discrepancy has resisted fully satisfactory resolution within the standard model $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The NLO contributions are large, and it is not excluded that further higher-order effects in production and/or fragmentation may resolve the discrepancy. However, the disagreement is surprising because the relatively large mass of the bottom quark sets a hard scattering scale at which fixed-order perturbative QCD computations of other processes are generally successful. The data invite the possibility of a contribution from “new physics”.

In a recent paper $`^\mathrm{?}`$, my collaborators and I explore an explanation within the context of the minimal supersymmetric standard model. We postulate the existence of a relatively light gluino $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ (mass $`12`$ to 16 GeV) that decays into a bottom quark $`b`$ and a light bottom squark $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ (mass $`2`$ to 5.5 GeV). The $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ are the spin-1/2 and spin-0 supersymmetric partners of the gluon ($`g`$) and bottom quark. In our scenario the masses of all other supersymmetric particles are arbitrarily heavy, i.e., of order the electroweak scale or greater. While the gluino decays instantly with 100% branching fraction into the $`b`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$, the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is either long-lived or decays via R-parity violation into a pair of hadronic jets. We obtain improved agreement with hadron collider rates of bottom-quark production. Several predictions are made that can be tested readily with forthcoming data.

Our assumptions are consistent with all constraints on the masses and couplings of supersymmetric particles $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. If the light bottom squark ($`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$) is an appropriate mixture of left-handed and right-handed bottom squarks, its tree-level coupling to the neutral gauge boson $`Z`$ can be small, leading to good agreement with the $`Z`$-peak observables $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The couplings $`Z_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1\stackrel{~}{b}_2}`$ and $`Z_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2\stackrel{~}{b}_2}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2`$ is the heavier bottom squark, survive but present no difficulty if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}>200`$ GeV. Bottom squarks make a small contribution to the inclusive cross section for $`e^+e^{}`$ hadrons, in comparison to the contributions from quark production, and $`\stackrel{~}{b}\overline{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$ resonances are likely to be impossible to extract from backgrounds $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The angular distribution of hadronic jets produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation can be examined in order to bound the contribution of scalar-quark production. Spin-1/2 quarks and spin-0 squarks emerge with different distributions, $`(1\pm \mathrm{cos}^2\theta )`$, respectively. We re-fit the angular distribution measured by the CELLO collaboration $`^\mathrm{?}`$, and find it is consistent with the production of a single pair of charge-1/3 squarks along with five flavors of quark-antiquark pairs. A new examination of the angular distribution with greater statistics would be valuable. The exclusion by the CLEO collaboration $`^\mathrm{?}`$ of a $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ with mass 3.5 to 4.5 GeV does not apply since that analysis focuses on the decays $`\stackrel{~}{b}c\mathrm{l}\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}c\mathrm{l}`$. On the other hand, these data might be reinterpreted in terms of a bound on the R-parity violating lepton-number violating decay of $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ into $`c\mathrm{l}`$. It would be interesting to study the hadronic decays $`\stackrel{~}{b}cq`$, with $`q=d`$ or $`s`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{b}us`$ with the CLEO data. In summary, measurements at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders do not significantly constrain $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ masses. An analysis of 2- and 4-jet events by the ALEPH collaboration $`^\mathrm{?}`$ disfavors $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$’s with mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}<6.3`$ GeV but not $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$’s in the mass range of interest to us. A renormalization group argument $`^\mathrm{?}`$ suggests that the existence of a light $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ goes hand-in-hand with a comparatively light $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}10`$ GeV).

## 2 Differential Cross Section

Because the excess production rate is observed in all bottom-quark decay channels, an explanation in terms of new physics is guided towards hypothesized new particles that decay either like bottom quarks or directly to bottom quarks. The former is difficult to implement successfully $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In our scenario, light gluinos are produced in pairs via standard QCD subprocesses, dominantly $`g+g\stackrel{~}{g}+\stackrel{~}{g}`$ at Tevatron and Large Hadron Collider (LHC) energies. The $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ has a strong color coupling to $`b`$’s and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$’s and, as long as its mass satisfies $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>m_b+m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$, the $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ decays promptly to $`b+\stackrel{~}{b}`$. The magnitude of the $`b`$ cross section, the shape of the $`b`$’s transverse momentum $`p_{Tb}`$ distribution, and the CDF measurement $`^\mathrm{?}`$ of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing are three features of the data that help to establish the preferred masses of the $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$.

We include contributions from both $`q+\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{g}+\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`g+g\stackrel{~}{g}+\stackrel{~}{g}`$. The subprocess $`g+b\stackrel{~}{g}+\stackrel{~}{b}`$ contributes insignificantly. In Fig. 1 we show the integrated $`p_{Tb}`$ distribution of the $`b`$ quarks that results from $`\stackrel{~}{g}b+\stackrel{~}{b}`$, for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=`$14 GeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}=`$ 3.5 GeV. The results are compared with the cross section obtained from next-to-leading order (NLO) perturbative QCD and CTEQ4M parton distribution functions (PDF’s) $`^\mathrm{?}`$, with $`m_b=`$ 4.75 GeV, and a renormalization and factorization scale $`\mu =\sqrt{m_b^2+p_{Tb}^2}`$. SUSY-QCD corrections to $`b\overline{b}`$ production are not included as they are not available and are generally expected to be somewhat smaller than the standard QCD corrections. A fully differential NLO calculation of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$-pair production and decay does not exist either. Therefore, we compute the $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$-pair cross section from the leading order (LO) matrix element with NLO PDF’s $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`\mu =\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2+p_{T_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}^2}`$, a two-loop $`\alpha _s`$, and multiply by 1.9, the ratio of inclusive NLO to LO cross sections $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

A relatively light gluino is necessary in order to obtain a bottom-quark cross section comparable in magnitude to the pure QCD component. Values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ 12 to 16 GeV are chosen because the resulting $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ decays produce $`p_{Tb}`$ spectra that are enhanced primarily in the neighborhood of $`p_{Tb}^{\mathrm{min}}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ where the data show the most prominent enhancement above the QCD expectation. Larger values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ yield too little cross section to be of interest, and smaller values produce more cross section than seems tolerated by the ratio of like-sign to opposite-sign leptons from $`b`$ decay, as discussed below. The choice of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$ has an impact on the kinematics of the $`b`$. After selections on $`p_{Tb}^{\mathrm{min}}`$, large values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$ reduce the cross section and, in addition, lead to shapes of the $`p_{Tb}`$ distribution that agree less well with the data. The values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ are correlated; similar results to those shown in Fig. 1 can be obtained with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ 12 GeV, but $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}m_b`$.

After the contributions of the NLO QCD and SUSY components are added, the magnitude of the bottom-quark cross section and the shape of the integrated $`p_{Tb}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ distribution are described well. A theoretical uncertainty of roughly $`\pm 30\%`$ may be assigned to the final solid curve, associated with variation of the $`b`$ mass, the renormalization/factorization scale, and the parton distributions. The SUSY process produces bottom quarks in a four-body final state and thus their momentum correlations are different from those of QCD. Angular correlations between muons that arise from decays of $`b`$’s have been measured $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Examining the angular correlations between $`b`$’s in the SUSY case, we find they are nearly indistinguishable from those of QCD once experimental cuts are applied.

## 3 Same-sign to Opposite-sign Leptons

Since the $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is a Majorana particle, its decay yields both quarks and antiquarks. Gluino pair production and subsequent decay to $`b`$’s will generate $`bb`$ and $`\overline{b}\overline{b}`$ pairs, as well as the $`b\overline{b}`$ final states that appear in QCD production. When a gluino is highly relativistic, its helicity is nearly the same as its chirality. Therefore, selection of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$’s whose transverse momentum is greater than their mass will reduce the number of like-sign $`b`$’s. In the intermediate $`p_T`$ region, however, the like-sign suppression is reduced. The cuts chosen in current hadron collider experiments for measurement of the ratio of like-sign to opposite-sign muons result in primarily unpolarized $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$’s, and, independent of the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ mixing angle, an equal number of like-sign and opposite-sign $`b`$’s is expected at production. Our SUSY mechanism leads therefore to an increase of like-sign leptons in the final state after semi-leptonic decays of the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quarks. This increase could be confused with an enhanced rate of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing.

Time-integrated mixing analyses of lepton pairs observed at hadron colliders are interpreted in terms of the quantity $`\overline{\chi }=f_d\chi _d+f_s\chi _s`$, where $`f_d`$ and $`f_s`$ are the fractions of $`B_d^0`$ and $`B_s^0`$ hadrons in the sample of semi-leptonic $`B`$ decays, and $`\chi _f`$ is the time-integrated mixing probability for $`B_f^0`$. Conventional $`b\overline{b}`$ pair production determines the quantity $`LS_c=2\overline{\chi }(1\overline{\chi })`$, the fraction of $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs that decay into like-sign leptons. Our SUSY mechanism leads to a new expression

$$LS=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}}}{\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{qcd}}}+LS_c\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{qcd}}}{\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{qcd}}}=2\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}(1\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}).$$
(1)
The factor $`1/2`$ arises because $`N(bb+\overline{b}\overline{b})N(b\overline{b})`$ in the new mechanism. Introducing $`G=\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{qcd}}`$, the ratio of SUSY and QCD bottom-quark cross sections after cuts, and solving for the effective mixing parameter, we obtain:

$$\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{\overline{\chi }}{\sqrt{1+G}}+\frac{1}{2}\left[1\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+G}}\right].$$
(2)
We interpret the CDF collaboration’s measurement as a determination of $`\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.131\pm 0.02\pm 0.016`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and note that it is marginally larger than the world average value $`\overline{\chi }=0.118\pm 0.005`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

To estimate our theoretical $`\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, we assume that $`\overline{\chi }=0.118\pm 0.005`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ represents the contribution from only the QCD $`b\overline{b}`$ component. We determine the ratio $`G`$ in the region of phase space where the measurement is made $`^\mathrm{?}`$, with both final $`b`$’s having $`p_{Tb}6.5`$ GeV and rapidity $`|y_b|1`$. For gluino masses of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=`$ 14 and 16 GeV, we obtain $`G=`$ 0.37 and 0.28, respectively, with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}=`$ 3.5 GeV. We compute $`\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.17`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=`$ 14 GeV, and $`\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.16`$ with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=`$ 16 GeV. To estimate the uncertainty on $`G`$, we vary the renormalization/factorization scale at which the cross sections are evaluated between $`\mu =m_x/2`$ and $`\mu =2m_x`$. Uncertainties of $`\pm 50\%`$ are obtained and lead to uncertainties in $`\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of $`\delta \overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}\pm 0.02`$. Additional theoretical uncertainties arise because there is no fully differential NLO calculation of gluino production and subsequent decay to $`b`$’s.

Comparing our expectations with the CDF value, we conclude that values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>12`$ GeV lead to a calculated $`\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ that is consistent with the data within experimental and theoretical uncertainties. With $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{qcd}}1/3`$, we can satisfy the magnitude and $`p_T`$ dependence of the $`b`$ production cross section and the mixing data.

## 4 Implications and Remarks

### 4.1 Hadron Reactions

Among the predictions of this SUSY scenario, the most clearcut is pair production of like-sign charged $`B`$ mesons at hadron colliders, $`B^+B^+`$ and $`B^{}B^{}`$. To verify the underlying premise of this work, that the cross section exceeds expectations of conventional perturbative QCD, a new measurement of the absolute rate for $`b`$ production in run II of the Tevatron is important. A very precise measurement of $`\overline{\chi }`$ in run II is obviously desirable. Since the fraction of $`b`$’s from gluinos changes with $`p_{Tb}`$, we also expect a change of $`\overline{\chi }`$ with the cut on $`p_{Tb}`$. The $`b`$ jet from $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ decay into $`b\stackrel{~}{b}`$ will contain the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$, implying unusual material associated with the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ in some fraction of the $`b\overline{b}`$ data sample. The existence of light $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$’s means that they will be pair-produced in partonic processes, leading to a slight increase ($`1`$%) in the hadronic dijet rate. Our approach increases the $`b`$ production rate at HERA and in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions at LEP by a small amount, not enough perhaps if early experimental indications in these cases are confirmed $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, but a full NLO study should be undertaken and better parton densities of photons are needed.

### 4.2 Running of $`\alpha _s`$

In the standard model, a global fit to all observables provides an indirect measurement of the strong coupling strength $`\alpha _s`$ at the scale of the $`Z`$ boson mass $`M_Z`$. The value $`\alpha _s(M_Z)0.119\pm 0.006`$ describes most observables properly $`^\mathrm{?}`$. A light $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ with mass about 15 GeV and a light $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ slow the running of $`\alpha _s`$ and modify $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$, determined by extrapolation from experiments performed at energies lower than $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$. The result is a shift of 0.007 in $`\alpha _s`$ derived from these experiments, to $`\alpha _s(M_Z)0.125`$, at the upper edge of the uncertainty band. Greater precision on the determination of $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$ from evolution would be valuable. Slower running of $`\alpha _s(Q)`$ also means a slower evolution of parton densities at small $`x`$, an effect that might be seen in HERA data for $`Q>m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$. Presence of a scalar $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ in the proton breaks the Callan-Gross relation and yields a non-zero leading-twist longitudinal structure function $`F_L(x,Q)`$ at leading-order.

### 4.3 $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-onia

Possible bound states of bottom squark pairs could be seen as $`J^P=0^+`$, $`1^{}`$, $`2^+`$, … mesonic resonances in $`\gamma \gamma `$ reactions and in $`p\overline{p}`$ formation, with masses in the 4 to 10 GeV range. They could show up as narrow states in the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ invariant mass spectra at hadron colliders, between the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. At an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, the intermediate photon requires production of a $`J^{PC}=1^{}`$ state. Bound states of low mass squarks with charge $`2/3`$ were studied with a potential model $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The small leptonic widths were found to preclude bounds for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}>3`$ GeV. For bottom squarks with charge $`1/3`$, the situation is more difficult.

### 4.4 $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ lifetime and observability

Strict R-parity conservation in the MSSM forbids $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ decay unless there is a lighter supersymmetric particle. R-parity-violating and lepton-number-violating decay of the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ into at least one lepton is disfavored by the CLEO data $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and would imply the presence of an extra lepton, albeit soft, in some fraction of $`b`$ jets observed at hadron colliders. The baryon-number-violating R-parity-violating ($`\overline{)}R_p`$) term in the MSSM superpotential is $`𝒲_{\overline{)}R_p}=\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }U_i^cD_j^cD_k^c`$; $`U_i^c`$ and $`D_i^c`$ are right-handed-quark singlet chiral superfields; and $`i,j,k`$ are generation indices. The limits on individual $`\overline{)}R_p`$ and baryon-number violating couplings $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ are relatively weak for third-generation squarks $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, $`\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }<0.5`$ to $`1`$.

The possible $`\overline{)}R_p`$ decay channels for the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ are $`123:\overline{\stackrel{~}{b}}u+s`$; $`213:\overline{\stackrel{~}{b}}c+d`$; and $`223:\overline{\stackrel{~}{b}}c+s`$. The hadronic width is $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{b}\mathrm{jet}+\mathrm{jet})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{b}}}}{2\pi }}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{b}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{j}<\mathrm{k}}{}}|\lambda _{\mathrm{ij3}}^{\prime \prime }|^2.`$ (3)
If $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}=3.5`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{b}ij)=0.08|\lambda _{ij3}^{\prime \prime }|^2`$ GeV. Unless all $`\lambda _{ij3}^{\prime \prime }`$ are extremely small, the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ will decay quickly and leave soft jets in the cone around the $`b`$. $`b`$-jets with an extra $`c`$ are possibly disfavored by CDF, but a detailed simulation is needed.

If the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is relatively stable, the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ could pick up a light $`\overline{u}`$ or $`\overline{d}`$ and become a $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{B}^0`$ “mesino” with $`J=1/2`$, the superpartner of the $`B`$ meson. The mass of the mesino would fall roughly in the range $`3`$ to $`7`$ GeV for the interval of $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ masses we consider. The charged mesino could fake a heavy muon if its hadronic cross section is small and if it survives passage through the hadron calorimeter and exits the muon chambers. Extra muon-like tracks would then appear in a fraction of the $`b\overline{b}`$ event sample, but tracks that left some activity in the hadron calorimeter. The mesino has baryon number zero but acts like a heavy $`\overline{p}`$ – perhaps detectable with a time-of-flight apparatus. A long-lived $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is not excluded by conventional searches at hadron and lepton colliders, but an analysis $`^\mathrm{?}`$ similar to that for $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$’s should be done to verify that there are no additional constraints on the allowed range of $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ masses and lifetimes.

## Acknowledgments

I am indebted to Brian Harris, David E. Kaplan, Zack Sullivan, Tim Tait, and Carlos Wagner for their collaboration and excellent suggestions. I have benefitted from valuable discussions with Barry Wicklund, Tom LeCompte, and Harry Lipkin. I congratulate Tony Sanda and his colleagues for organizing an excellent Fourth International Workshop on B Physics and CP Violation in an exceptional location. This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract W-31-109-ENG-38.

## References


format: text

text:
# References

String vacua with 4 unbroken supercharges are of particular interest due to their possible phenomenological properties. In four space-time dimensions such vacua have traditionally been constructed as compactifications of the heterotic string on Calabi-Yau threefolds $`Y_3`$ or conformal field theoretic generalizations thereof. More recently other classes of vacua with four supercharges have been considered such as F-theory compactified on elliptically fibered Calabi-Yau fourfolds $`Y_4`$ .

In this paper we study M-theory compactified on $`Y_4`$ whose low energy effective theory has three space-time dimensions and also four unbroken supercharges. Aspects of such compactifications have been considered in refs.  and in an appropriate limit they are related to F-theory on $`Y_4`$ . In a previous paper  we derived the low energy effective Lagrangian in the large volume limit for the class of fourfolds with vanishing Euler number $`\chi =0`$. In particular this constraint implied that the metric is a direct product $`M_3\times Y_4`$ and no background flux had to be turned on. In this paper we generalize the previous analysis to the case $`\chi 0`$ which requires either space-time filling membranes or a non-trivial four-form flux $`F_4`$ on $`Y_4`$ and a warped space-time metric . We show that a non-trivial $`F_4`$ introduces Chern-Simons terms and a potential which in turn can be derived from two superpotentials. The presence of the Chern-Simons terms has first been noticed in ref.  while the superpotentials have been proposed in . We find basic agreement with ref.  except that one of our superpotentials is the real version of the corresponding superpotential given in .444 There is another way to generate a superpotential in three dimensions by wrapping $`5`$-branes over certain $`6`$-cycles of $`Y_4`$ . This can however not occur if there is a non-vanishing four-form flux localized on a four-dimensional submanifold of the $`6`$-cycle . Such contributions are not consider here. Similar superpotentials arise in the compactification of type IIA on $`Y_4`$  and their properties have been studied in refs. .555An expanded version of our paper can be found in .

Let us first briefly recall the compactification of M-theory on a fourfold $`Y_4`$ with $`\chi (Y_4)=0`$. For this situation the low energy effective Lagrangian in the large volume limit has been derived in ref. . The starting point is the eleven-dimensional supergravity which only contains a metric and a three-form $`A_3`$ (with field strength $`F_4=dA_3`$) as massless bosonic components. The 11-dimensional supergravity action is given by

$$𝒮=\frac{1}{2\kappa _{11}^2}d^{11}x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left[\widehat{R}\frac{1}{2}|F_4|^2\right]\frac{1}{12\kappa _{11}^2}A_3F_4F_4.$$
(1)
When compactified on a Calabi-Yau fourfold additional scalar and vector fields appear in the resulting three-dimensional effective action. From the metric $`h^{1,1}`$ real scalar fields $`M^A,A=1,\mathrm{},h^{1,1},`$ which parameterize the deformation of the Kähler form and $`h^{3,1}`$ complex scalar fields $`Z^\alpha ,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},h^{3,1},`$ which parameterize the deformation of the complex structure arise. In addition the three-form $`A_3`$ leads to $`h^{1,1}`$ vector fields $`A_\mu ^A`$ and $`h^{2,1}`$ complex scalar fields $`N^I,I=1,\mathrm{},h^{2,1}`$. Together these fields form $`h^{2,1}+h^{3,1}`$ chiral multiplets and $`h^{1,1}`$ vector multiplets. For simplicity we consider only the case where the $`(2,1)`$-scalars $`N^I`$ are frozen and perform a Kaluza-Klein reduction keeping only the massless $`(1,1)`$ and $`(3,1)`$ modes. In the large volume limit this results in

$`_0^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R^{(3)}G_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}_\mu Z^\alpha ^\mu \overline{Z}^{\overline{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝒱^2G_{AB}F_{\mu \nu }^AF^{B\mu \nu }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{AB}_\mu M^A^\mu M^B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \mathrm{ln}𝒱^\mu \mathrm{ln}𝒱.`$
$`G_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$ is the Kähler metric on the space of $`(3,1)`$-forms given by

$$G_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=e^{K_{3,1}}_{Y_4}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\overline{\beta }}=_\alpha \overline{}_{\overline{\beta }}K_{3,1},K_{3,1}=\mathrm{ln}\left[_{Y_4}\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right],$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the unique holomorphic $`(4,0)`$-form on $`Y_4`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ its complex conjugate and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ a basis of $`H^{3,1}(Y_4)`$. $`G_{AB}`$ is the metric on the space of $`(1,1)`$-forms defined as

$$G_{AB}=\frac{1}{2𝒱}_{Y_4}e_Ae_B=\frac{1}{2}_A_B\mathrm{ln}𝒱,$$
(4)
where $`𝒱`$ is the volume of $`Y_4`$

$$𝒱=_{Y_4}d^8\xi \sqrt{g}=\frac{1}{4!}_{Y_4}JJJJ=\frac{1}{4!}d_{ABCD}M^AM^BM^CM^D.$$
(5)
$`J=M^Ae_A`$ is the Kähler form and $`d_{ABCD}=_{Y_4}e_Ae_Be_Ce_D`$ are the classical intersection numbers of $`Y_4`$.

The Lagrangian (S0.Ex1) can also be displayed in dual variables where one dualizes the vectors $`A_\mu ^A`$ to scalars $`P^A`$ and defines the complex Kähler coordinates

$$T^A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}(iP^A+𝒱G_{AB}M^B).$$
(6)
In this basis the Lagrangian (S0.Ex1) reads

$$_0^{(3)}=\frac{1}{2}R^{(3)}G_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}_\mu Z^\alpha ^\mu \overline{Z}^{\overline{\beta }}G_{A\overline{B}}^K_\mu T^A^\mu \overline{T}^{\overline{B}},$$
(7)
where the metric $`G_{A\overline{B}}^K`$ is Kähler and given by

$$G_{A\overline{B}}^K=_A\overline{}_{\overline{B}}K_{1,1},K_{1,1}=3\mathrm{ln}𝒱=\mathrm{ln}\left[(T^A+\overline{T}^A)𝒱G_{AB}^1(T^B+\overline{T}^B)\right].$$
(8)
Now we come to the main objective of the paper, that is generalize the previous analysis to the case where $`\chi 0`$. In the absence of space-time filling membranes an $`A_3`$-tadpole can only be avoided in the $`D=3`$ theory if a non-trivial four-form flux $`F_4`$ along the internal Calabi-Yau fourfold is turned on . This arises due to the presence of the higher order term (in $`\kappa _{11}`$)

$$\delta 𝒮_1=T_2A_3X_8,$$
(9)
where $`T_2(2\pi )^{2/3}(2\kappa _{11}^2)^{1/3}`$ and

$$X_8=\frac{1}{192(2\pi )^4}\left[\text{tr}\widehat{R}^4\frac{1}{4}(\text{tr}\widehat{R}^2)^2\right],_{Y_4}X_8=\frac{\chi }{24}.$$
(10)
Combining eqs. (1), (9), (10) results in absence of space-time filling membranes in the consistency condition

$$\frac{1}{4\kappa _{11}^2}_{Y_4}F_4F_4=\frac{T_2}{24}\chi ,$$
(11)
which requires a non-vanishing (internal) $`F_4`$ if $`\chi 0`$. Furthermore, supersymmetry can only be maintained if the metric is not a direct product $`M_3\times Y_4`$ but instead includes a warp factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$

$$\widehat{g}_{MN}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\mathrm{\Delta }g_{\mu \nu }& 0\\ 0& e^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }}g_{mn}\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
where to leading order in $`\kappa _{11}`$ $`g_{mn}`$ is a Ricci-flat Calabi-Yau metric. The warp factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ obeys

$$_m^m\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{3}(F_4F_4)\frac{4}{3}T_2\kappa _{11}^2X_8,$$
(13)
where the Laplace operator and the Hodge $``$-operator are defined with respect to the metric $`g_{mn}`$.666We have adapted the formula given in  to our conventions. Thus for compactifications with $`\chi 0`$ higher order terms have to be taken into account and they in turn warp the three-dimensional space-time metric.

The Kaluza-Klein reduction is a good approximation if the size of the internal $`Y_4`$ manifold is large compared to the 11-dimensional Planck length $`l_{11}^9=\kappa _{11}^2`$ or in other words for $`l_Yl_{11}`$ where $`l_Y^8`$ is the ‘average’ size of $`Y_4`$. From eq. (11) we infer that $`F_4𝒪(l_{11}^3/l_Y^4)`$ while eq. (13) implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒪(l_{11}^6/l_Y^6)`$ so that in the limit $`l_{11}/l_Y0`$ the metric (12) becomes the unwarped product metric and $`F_4`$ vanishes .777Strictly speaking $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ could have a harmonic part. However, this should also vanish in the limit $`l_{11}/l_Y0`$ in order to ensure that (12) becomes the unwarped metric.

In this paper we focus on the three-dimensional effective theory with at most two derivatives and compute some of the corrections to the Lagrangian (S0.Ex1) which result from higher order terms. Specifically we compute the Chern-Simons term and the potential to order $`𝒪(\kappa _{11}^{2/3})`$ while the corrections to the kinetic terms of (S0.Ex1) are not calculated. With this restriction the only other 11-dimensional term we need to consider is888All other bosonic higher derivative terms which are related via supersymmetry to the ones given in (9) and (14) are proportional to the Ricci-tensor or contain at least one $`4`$-form field strength . Their contribution to the potential is therefore subleading.

$$\delta 𝒮_2=b_1T_2d^{11}x\sqrt{g}(J_0\frac{1}{2}E_8),$$
(14)
where $`b_1^1(2\pi )^43^22^{13}`$ and

$`E_8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}ϵ^{ABCM_1N_1\mathrm{}M_4N_4}ϵ_{ABCM_1^{}N_1^{}\mathrm{}M_4^{}N_4^{}}\widehat{R}_{M_1N_1}^{M_1^{}N_1^{}}\mathrm{}\widehat{R}_{M_4N_4}^{M_4^{}N_4^{}},`$ (15)
$`J_0`$ $`=`$ $`t^{M_1N_1\mathrm{}M_4N_4}t_{M_1^{}N_1^{}\mathrm{}M_4^{}N_4^{}}\widehat{R}_{M_1N_1}^{M_1^{}N_1^{}}\mathrm{}\widehat{R}_{M_4N_4}^{M_4^{}N_4^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}E_8.`$
The tensor $`t`$ is defined by $`t^{M_1\mathrm{}M_8}A_{M_1M_2}\mathrm{}A_{M_7M_8}=24\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}A^46(\mathrm{tr}A^2)^2`$ for antisymmetric tensors $`A`$.999We follow here the conventions of  which differ from the tensor $`t_8`$ used in  in that the $`ϵ`$-term is omitted. Note that $`E_8`$ given in (15) is not the eight-dimensional Euler density but an 11-dimensional generalization of it. More generally one can define

$`E_n(M_D)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(Dn)!}}ϵ_{N_1\mathrm{}N_{Dn}N_{Dn+1}\mathrm{}N_D}ϵ^{N_1\mathrm{}N_{Dn}N_{Dn+1}^{}\mathrm{}N_D^{}}`$ (16)
$`R_{N_{Dn+1}^{}N_{Dn+2}^{}}^{N_{Dn+1}N_{Dn+2}}\mathrm{}R_{N_{D1}^{}N_D^{}}^{N_{D1}N_D},`$
where $`D`$ denotes the real dimension of the manifold. Then $`E_8(Y_4)`$ is proportional to the eight-dimensional Euler density, i.e. $`12b_1_{Y_4}d^8\xi \sqrt{g}E_8(Y_4)=\chi `$ holds.

The next step is to reduce the action $`𝒮+\delta 𝒮_1+\delta 𝒮_2`$ consisting of the terms given in (1), (9) and (14). Following ref.  we suppose that the only non-vanishing components of $`F_4`$ are $`F_{mnpq}`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu \rho m}`$ where the latter are related via supersymmetry to the warp factor via $`F_{\mu \nu \rho m}=ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }_me^{\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. In the reduction of the 11-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert term one obtains the three-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert term $`R^{(3)}`$ and an additional term proportional to $`_{Y_4}\mathrm{\Delta }_m^m\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which is of higher order.101010The absence of possible other terms in the presence of a $`4`$-form flux is carefully discussed in ref. . Furthermore, the integral $`_{Y_4}d^8\xi \sqrt{g^{(8)}}J_0`$ vanishes for Ricci-flat Kähler manifolds .111111$`J_0`$ is the sum of an internal and an external part. Since $`J_0`$ can be expressed through the Weyl-tensor only  the external part vanishes because the Weyl tensor vanishes identically in $`D=3`$. Again, at leading order we can assume the metric to be Ricci flat and neglect the effect of the warp factor in $`J_0`$ as a higher order contribution. To evaluate the leading order contribution to $`E_8`$ we use the fact that on a product space $`M_3\times Y_4`$ one has $`E_8(M_3\times Y_4)=E_8(Y_4)+4E_2(M_3)E_6(Y_4)`$ where $`E_2(M_3)=2R^{(3)}`$ holds.

The details of the Kaluza-Klein reduction procedure can be found in  while here we only give a few intermediate steps. First of all one obtains a non-canonical Einstein term in the three-dimensional effective action

$$𝒮^{(3)}=\frac{1}{2\kappa _{11}^2}d^3x\sqrt{g^{(3)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }R^{(3)}+\mathrm{},$$
(17)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝒱_\mathrm{\Delta }+8\kappa _{11}^2b_1T_2_{Y_4}d^8\xi \sqrt{g^{(8)}}E_6(Y_4),$$
(18)
and $`𝒱_\mathrm{\Delta }=_{Y_4}d^8\xi e^{\mathrm{\Delta }/2}\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{(8)}}`$ denotes a warped Calabi-Yau volume, where $`\widehat{g}^{(8)}`$ is the internal part of the warped metric (12). With the help of a Weyl rescaling $`g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }^2g_{\mu \nu }`$ the Einstein term can be put into canonical form. At leading order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be replaced by $`𝒱`$ and one obtains the Weyl rescaled low energy effective Lagrangian (we set $`\kappa _{11}=1`$ henceforth)121212As we said before $`_0^{(3)}`$ is also corrected at this order but we did not compute those correction.

$$^{(3)}=_0^{(3)}\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }\stackrel{~}{W}_{AB}A_\mu ^AF_{\nu \rho }^BV,$$
(19)
where $`_0^{(3)}`$ is given in (S0.Ex1) and one has

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4𝒱^3}}\left({\displaystyle _{Y_4}}d^8\xi \sqrt{g^{(8)}}|F_4|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}T_2\chi \right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{W}_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_A_B\stackrel{~}{W},\stackrel{~}{W}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _{Y_4}}F_4JJ.`$ (20)
For $`\chi =0`$ both $`V`$ and the Chern-Simons terms were absent.131313 The fact that the $`E_8`$-term contributes to the potential in $`D=3`$ was first noticed in .

In order to display the relationship of the potential with the two superpotentials of  we need to further rewrite $`V`$. By definition we have

$$_{Y_4}d^8\xi \sqrt{g^{(8)}}|F_4|^2=_{Y_4}F_4F_4,$$
(21)
where to leading order $`F_4`$ is the Hodge dual of $`F_4`$ with respect to the metric $`g_{mn}`$. $`F_4`$ can be expanded as the sum $`F_4=F_{4,0}+F_{3,1}+F_{2,2}+F_{1,3}+F_{0,4}`$. In order to proceed let us recall that on $`Y_4`$ a primitive $`(p,q)`$-form $`\omega _{p,q}^{(0)}`$ can be defined by

$$J^{5pq}\omega _{p,q}^{(0)}=0,$$
(22)
where $`J^n`$ is the $`n`$th wedge product of the Kähler form. The Hodge dual of a primitive four-form is given by

$$\omega _{p,4p}^{(0)}=(1)^p\omega _{p,4p}^{(0)}.$$
(23)
On $`Y_4`$ all components of $`F_4`$ except $`F_{(2,2)}`$ are primitive in that they satisfy (22) and as a consequence their Hodge duals are simply given by

$$F_{4,0}=F_{4,0},F_{3,1}=F_{3,1},F_{1,3}=F_{1,3},F_{0,4}=F_{0,4}.$$
(24)
For $`F_{(2,2)}`$ one uses the Lefschetz decomposition which asserts

$$F_{2,2}F_{2,2}^{(0)}+JF_{1,1}^{(0)}+J^2F_{0,0}^{(0)},$$
(25)
and computes explicitly

$$F_{2,2}=F_{2,2}^{(0)}JF_{1,1}^{(0)}+J^2F_{0,0}^{(0)}=F_{2,2}2JF_{1,1}^{(0)}.$$
(26)
Combining eqs. (24)–(26) one arrives at

$$F_4=F_42F_{3,1}2F_{1,3}2JF_{1,1}^{(0)},$$
(27)
and hence

$$_{Y_4}F_4F_4=_{Y_4}F_4F_44_{Y_4}F_{3,1}F_{1,3}2_{Y_4}JF_{1,1}^{(0)}JF_{1,1}^{(0)},$$
(28)
where we have used $`JF_{2,2}^{(0)}=0`$ and $`J^3F_{1,1}^{(0)}=0`$ in accord with (22).

The second term in (28) can be further rewritten by using

$$D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }+(_\alpha K_{3,1})\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha $$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ is the basis of $`H^{3,1}`$ and $`K_{3,1}`$ is the Kähler potential for the $`(3,1)`$ moduli defined in eq. (3). With the help of (29) and (3) one derives

$$_{Y_4}F_{3,1}F_{1,3}=e^{K_{3,1}}G^{1\alpha \overline{\beta }}D_\alpha WD_{\overline{\beta }}\overline{W},$$
(30)
where

$$W=_{Y_4}\mathrm{\Omega }F_4$$
(31)
is precisely the chiral superpotential of .

Finally, with the help of (4) also the last term in (28) can be expressed in terms of the superpotential (S0.Ex4). Expanding $`F_{1,1}^{(0)}`$ into the basis $`e_A`$ and using

$$G^{1AB}=\frac{1}{6}𝒱𝒱^{1AB}+\frac{2}{3}M^AM^B,$$
(32)
where $`𝒱_{AB}=\frac{1}{12}_A_B𝒱`$ and indices are raised with $`\delta ^{AB}`$, one finds

$$_{Y_4}JF_{1,1}^{(0)}JF_{1,1}^{(0)}=𝒱^1\left(G^{1AB}_A\stackrel{~}{W}_B\stackrel{~}{W}2\stackrel{~}{W}^2\right).$$
(33)
Inserting (30), (33) into (28) and using (21) one arrives at

$`{\displaystyle _{Y_4}}d^8\xi \sqrt{g^{(8)}}|F_4|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{Y_4}}F_4F_4+4e^{K_{3,1}}G^{1\alpha \overline{\beta }}D_\alpha WD_{\overline{\beta }}\overline{W}`$ (34)
$`+2𝒱^1\left(G^{1AB}_A\stackrel{~}{W}_B\stackrel{~}{W}2\stackrel{~}{W}^2\right).`$
Inserting (34) into (S0.Ex4) and taking into account the tadpole cancellation condition (11) results in

$$V=e^{K^{(3)}}G^{1\alpha \overline{\beta }}D_\alpha WD_{\overline{\beta }}\overline{W}+𝒱^4\left(\frac{1}{2}G^{1AB}_A\stackrel{~}{W}_B\stackrel{~}{W}\stackrel{~}{W}^2\right),$$
(35)
where

$$K^{(3)}=K_{3,1}3\mathrm{ln}𝒱.$$
(36)
Finally, $`V`$ and $`^{(3)}`$ can be written in a more canonical form by transforming to new coordinates

$$\widehat{M}^A=𝒱^1M^A,\widehat{J}=\widehat{M}^Ae_A.$$
(37)
From eqs. (4), (5) and (36) we learn

$$\widehat{𝒱}_{Y_4}\widehat{J}^4=𝒱^3,\widehat{G}_{AB}=𝒱^2G_{AB}=\frac{1}{2}_A_B\mathrm{ln}\widehat{𝒱},K^{(3)}=K_{3,1}+\mathrm{ln}\widehat{𝒱},$$
(38)
where the derivatives $`_A`$ are now with respect to $`\widehat{M}^A`$. If we furthermore introduce

$$\widehat{W}=\frac{1}{4}_{Y_4}F_4\widehat{J}\widehat{J}=𝒱^2\stackrel{~}{W}$$
(39)
and insert (38) and (39) into (19) using (S0.Ex1) we arrive at

$`^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R^{(3)}G_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}_\mu Z^\alpha ^\mu \overline{Z}^{\overline{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{G}_{AB}_\mu \widehat{M}^A^\mu \widehat{M}^B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{G}_{AB}F_{\mu \nu }^AF^{B\mu \nu }`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }\widehat{W}_{AB}A_\mu ^AF_{\nu \rho }^BV,`$
where the explicit dependence on $`\widehat{𝒱}`$ has disappeared from the Lagrangian. The potential in the new variables is given by

$$V=e^{K^{(3)}}G^{1\alpha \overline{\beta }}D_\alpha WD_{\overline{\beta }}\overline{W}+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{G}^{1AB}_A\widehat{W}_B\widehat{W}\widehat{W}^2,$$
(41)
where the derivatives $`_A\widehat{W}`$ are again taken with respect to the new variables $`\widehat{M}^A`$.

We see that the potential is entirely expressed in terms of two superpotentials $`W`$ and $`\widehat{W}`$. The $`W`$ given in (31) is precisely the chiral superpotential of  while $`\widehat{W}`$ given in (39) is the real version of the superpotential of . This is related to the fact that the presence of the Chern-Simons terms no longer allows a duality transformation from vector to chiral multiplets. As a consequence $`\widehat{W}`$ can not be complexified as there are only real scalars $`\widehat{M}^A`$ in the vector multiplets. However, upon further $`S^1`$ reduction $`\widehat{W}`$ should become complex and coincide with the $`D=2`$ superpotential of .141414To show this directly would require a generalization of the arguments given in . The reduction of the Chern-Simons terms leads to terms $`\theta _AF_{01}^A`$ and the $`\theta `$-angles contribute to the potential in $`D=2`$.

Finally, let us compare the potential (41) with the potentials of $`D=3,N=2`$ supergravity. Unfortunately, the relevant potential for chiral and vector multiplets with Chern-Simons terms coupled to $`D=3,N=2`$ supergravity is not available in the literature. The full derivation of this potential is beyond the scope of this paper and will be presented elsewhere. Here we just derive part of it by an $`S^1`$ compactification of a corresponding $`D=4`$ supergravity.

The four-dimensional theory we need to consider has to contain both chiral and linear multiplets. A $`D=4`$ linear multiplet consists of an antisymmetric tensor and a real scalar $`L`$ as bosonic components. The $`D=4`$ Lagrangian is determined by two functions, the holomorphic superpotential $`W(\varphi ^\alpha )`$ and the real function $`K^{(4)}=K_\varphi (\varphi ^\alpha ,\overline{\varphi }^{\overline{\alpha }})+K_L(L^{\stackrel{~}{A}})`$, where $`\varphi ^\alpha `$ denote the scalars of the chiral multiplets. $`K_\varphi `$ is the Kähler potential of the chiral fields and the second derivative of $`K_L`$ determines the $`\sigma `$-model metric of $`L^{\stackrel{~}{A}}`$ .151515We have chosen a theory where $`K^{(4)}`$ is the sum of two terms since this matches the situation we have in $`D=3`$. In this theory the scalar potential is given by161616We thank R. Grimm for discussions on this point.

$$V^{(4)}=e^{K^{(4)}}\left(G^{1\alpha \overline{\beta }}D_\alpha WD_{\overline{\beta }}\overline{W}+(L^{\stackrel{~}{A}}_{\stackrel{~}{A}}K^{(4)}3)|W|^2\right),$$
(42)
where $`D_\alpha W=_\alpha W+(_\alpha K^{(4)})W`$. This form of the potential can be derived for example from the $`D=4`$ duality between an antisymmetric tensor and a scalar. At the level of superfields this results in the duality between a linear multiplet $`L`$ and a chiral multiplet $`S`$ with $`S+\overline{S}L^1`$. The Kähler potential of $`S`$ is given by $`K=\mathrm{ln}(S+\overline{S})`$ and the superpotential continues to be a function of only the $`\varphi ^\alpha `$. In this dual description with only chiral multiplets $`V^{(4)}`$ takes the standard form $`V^{(4)}=e^{K^{(4)}}\left(G^{1I\overline{J}}D_IWD_{\overline{J}}\overline{W}3|W|^2\right)`$, where the index $`I`$ now runs over all chiral multiplets $`(\varphi ^\alpha ,S^{\stackrel{~}{A}})`$.

Reducing the theory on a circle leaves the chiral multiplets unaltered. The linear multiplets, however, become vector multiplets and an additional vector multiplet containing the radius $`r`$ and the Kaluza-Klein vector of the circle as its bosonic components appears in the spectrum. Let us define $`L^0=r^2`$. A straightforward $`S^1`$-reduction shows that after an appropriate Weyl rescaling the $`D=3`$ potential is given by

$$V^{(3)}=e^{K^{(3)}}\left(G^{1\alpha \overline{\beta }}D_\alpha WD_{\overline{\beta }}\overline{W}+(L^A_AK^{(3)}4)|W|^2\right),$$
(43)
where $`K^{(3)}=K^{(4)}+\mathrm{ln}L^0`$ and the index $`A`$ now includes 0. This form of the potential is indeed consistent with the first term of (41) if one identifies $`L^A=\widehat{M}^A`$, uses (38) and the identity $`\widehat{M}^A_A\mathrm{ln}\widehat{𝒱}=4`$.

The second term in (41) is precisely the D-term of a $`D=3,N=2`$ Chern-Simons theory coupled to supergravity. As was noted in ref.  supersymmetrization of the Chern-Simons terms requires a D-term potential which coincides with the second term in (41). The last term of (41) should arise when not only a pure Chern-Simons theory but a more general gauge theory including the standard kinetic term and the Chern-Simons term is coupled to $`N=2`$ supergravity.

Curiously, the potential for $`\widehat{W}`$ as displayed in (41) is the $`D=3`$ version of a general formula for the scalar potential in arbitrary dimension $`D`$. The requirement of the stability of AdS backgrounds leads to

$$V^{(D)}=\frac{1}{2}(D2)(D1)\left(\frac{D2}{D1}G^{1AB}_A\widehat{W}_B\widehat{W}\widehat{W}^2\right),$$
(44)
which for $`D=3`$ indeed gives $`V^{(3)}=\frac{1}{2}G^{1AB}_A\widehat{W}_B\widehat{W}\widehat{W}^2`$.

Finally, let us discuss the conditions for unbroken supersymmetry. From our derivation of the $`D=3`$ potential it is clear that for the chiral multiplets unbroken supersymmetry requires $`D_\alpha W=0`$ which in turn imposes constraints on the allowed $`4`$-form flux $`F_4`$. Using (31) $`D_\alpha W=0=D_{\overline{\beta }}\overline{W}`$ implies $`F_{3,1}=F_{1,3}=0`$. Furthermore, from our derivation of the potential one would expect that for the vector multiplets the conditions of unbroken supersymmetry are171717A rigorous derivation requires the computation of the fermionic supersymmetry transformations in an $`N=2`$ supergravity background.

$$(_AK^{(3)})W=0=_A\widehat{W},$$
(45)
while the vacuum energy is determined by $`\widehat{W}^2`$ only. The first condition is the precise analog of the four-dimensional situation when the superpotential does not depend on a chiral scalar, in which case $`D_SW=(_SK)W`$ holds and supersymmetry also forces $`W=0`$. As we have seen the $`D=3`$ vector multiplets are closely related to the $`D=4`$ linear multiplets which precisely have the feature $`D_SW=(_SK)W`$. $`(_AK^{(3)})W=0`$ in general can only be fulfilled if $`W=0`$ which implies $`F_{4,0}=F_{0,4}=0`$. Finally, using (39) $`_A\widehat{W}=0`$ implies $`\widehat{J}F_4=0`$, i.e. $`F_4`$ has to be primitive. This last condition implies not only $`_A\widehat{W}=0`$ but also $`\widehat{W}=0`$. Thus the cosmological constant always vanishes in a supersymmetric minimum and no supersymmetric $`AdS_3`$ solution exists.181818Recently this has also been noticed in the revised version of . We thank the authors for communicating their result prior to publication. To summarize, supersymmetry constrains the $`4`$-form flux to be a primitive $`(2,2)`$-form $`F_4=F_{2,2}^{(0)}`$. This result has first been derived in  and has led to the proposal of the two superpotentials (31) and (a complex version of) (39) in ref. . By performing a Kaluza-Klein reduction on a Calabi-Yau fourfold with $`4`$-form flux turned on we have verified that to order $`𝒪(\kappa _{11}^{2/3})`$ the potential can be expressed in terms of the superpotentials (31), (39) and reproduced the conditions for a supersymmetric ground state.

Acknowledgments

We thank R. Grimm, S. Gukov, H. Günther, C. Herrmann, M. Klein, A. Klemm, T. Mohaupt and M. Zagermann for valuable discussions. We also thank R. Grimm for his hospitality at the CPT in Marseille where part of this work was done. J.L. thanks D. Gross and S. Weinberg for financial support and hospitality at the ITP, Santa Barbara and the University of Texas in Austin at the final stages of this work.

This research was supported in part by the DFG (the German Science Foundation), GIF (the German–Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research), the DAAD (the German Academic Exchange Service) and the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949.


text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

Consider a nonlinear operator equation

(1.1)
$$F(x)=0,F:HH,$$

in a real Hilbert space $`H`$. We suppose here that equation (1.1) is solvable (not necessarily uniquely), and the operator $`F`$ is twice Fréchet differentiable without such structural assumptions as monotonicity, invertibility of $`F^{}`$ etc.

In the theory of ill-posed problems various discrete and continuous methods based on a regularization are known. A principal point in the numerical implementation of regularized Newton’s and Gauss-Newton’s procedures is the inversion of the operators $`(F^{}(x)+\epsilon I)`$ and $`(F^{}(x)F^{}(x)+\epsilon I)`$ respectively , , . Such an inversion for certain operators is a nontrivial task. Moreover, the inversion decreases the accuracy of computations.

For well-posed equations (i.e., in the case when the Fréchet derivative operator $`F^{}(x)`$ is boundedly invertible in a ball, which contains one of the solutions) several approaches are taken in order to reduce the cost associated with the storage and inversion of $`F^{}(x)`$ in Newton’s scheme (or $`F^{}(x)F^{}(x)`$ in Gauss-Newton’s scheme). Iterative techniques for linear systems, like ’conjugate gradient’, can be applied to compute an approximation to the Newton step $`s_n:=x_{n+1}x_n`$, yielding an inexact, or truncated, Newton’s method. Such a method does not explicitly require the operator $`F^{}(x)`$. Instead, it requires only applications of $`F^{}(x)`$ to certain elements. See ,  or (, p.136).

Another approach is to replace the exact Fréchet derivative by an approximation obtained from current and previous values of $`F(x)`$. In this case, only $`F(x_{n+1})`$ and $`F(x_n)`$ are required. This generates the secant method (, p.201). Perhaps the most popular secant method is the BFGS method, which was discovered independently by Broyden, Fletcher, Goldfarb, and Shanno in 1970. To implement the BFGS, given an approximation $`J_n`$ to $`F^{}(x_n)`$, one first computes

$$s_n:=x_{n+1}x_n\text{and}y_n:=F(x_{n+1})F(x_n).$$

One then gets an approximation to $`F^{}(x_{n+1})`$:

$$J_{n+1}=J_n\frac{(J_ns_n)(J_ns_n)^T}{s_n^TJ_ns_n}+\frac{y_ny_n^T}{y_n^Ts_n}.$$

If $`J_n`$ is symmetric positive definite and $`y_n^Ts_n>0`$, then $`J_{n+1}`$ will also be symmetric positive definite. In the finite dimensional well-posed case, under standard assumptions, the BFGS method is guaranteed to be superlinearly convergent.

BFGS has a limited memory variant (, p.224), which requires no explicit matrix storage for the approximate derivative. It is based on the recursion for the inverse

$$J_{n+1}^1=\left(I\frac{s_ny_n^T}{y_n^Ts_n}\right)J_n^1\left(I\frac{y_ns_n^T}{y_n^Ts_n}\right)+\frac{s_ns_n^T}{y_n^Ts_n}.$$

In  the following continuous Newton-type algorithm for solving nonlinear well-posed operator equations is investigated

$$\dot{x}(t)=J(t)F(x(t)),x(0)=x_0H,J(0)L(H),$$

$$\dot{J}(t)=\rho ^2\left[F^{}(x(t))F^{}(x(t))J(t)+J(t)F^{}(x(t))F^{}(x(t))\right]+2\rho ^2F^{}(x(t)).$$

The theorem establishing convergence with the exponential rate is proved for the above procedure.

In many important applications the Fréchet derivative operator is not boundedly invertible: this is an ill-posed case. In order to deal with this difficulty, we propose a novel continuous algorithm with simultaneous updates of $`(F^{}(x(t))F^{}(x(t))+\epsilon (t)I)^1`$ and prove a convergence theorem. The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we introduce the algorithm and also state two Lemmas. In section 3 the main convergence result is established. An attractive feature of this result (formulas (2.3)-(2.4) in section 2) is the absence of the assumptions about the location of the spectrum of the operator $`F^{}(x)`$. For example, in  the operator $`F^{}(x)`$ was assumed nonnegative, which is a strong assumption about location of its spectrum. One may generalize the methods and results of  to the case of the operators for which $`\mathrm{}F^{}(x)0`$, which still imposes a restriction on the location of the spectrum of $`F^{}(x)`$. The absence of such assumptions in our paper is made possible by the conditions 5) and 6) of Theorem 3.5 in section 3.

## 2. The Initial Value Problem and Some Auxiliary Results

Consider continuously regularized Gauss-Newton’s procedure for solving equation (1.1):

(2.1)
$$\dot{x}(t)=\left[F^{}(x(t))F^{}(x(t))+\epsilon (t)I\right]^1\left[F^{}(x(t))F(x(t))+\epsilon (t)(x(t)x_0)\right],$$

where $`\epsilon (t)>0`$, $`x_0H`$, and $`I`$ is an identity operator. The reader may consult  and  for a convergence analysis of (2.1). Problem (2.1) is equivalent to the following system:

$$\dot{x}(t)=Q(t)\left[F^{}(x(t))F(x(t))+\epsilon (t)(x(t)x_0)\right],$$

(2.2)
$$[F^{}(x(t))F^{}(x(t))+\epsilon (t)I]Q(t)I=0,Q(t)L(H).$$

Solve equation (2.2) by using continuous simple iteration scheme. We arrive at the initial value problem

(2.3)
$$\dot{x}(t)=B(t)\left[F^{}(x(t))F(x(t))+\epsilon (t)(x(t)x_0)\right],$$

(2.4)
$$\dot{B}(t)=\left[(F^{}(x(t))F^{}(x(t))+\epsilon (t)I)B(t)I\right],$$

$$x(0)=x_0H,B(0)L(H),0<\epsilon (t)0\text{as}t+\mathrm{}.$$

The following lemma about the inversion of a nonlinear differential inequality was first stated and proved in .

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`\gamma (t),\sigma (t),\beta (t)C[0,+\mathrm{})`$. If there exists a positive function $`\mu (t)C^1[0,+\mathrm{})`$ such that

(2.5)
$$0\sigma (t)\frac{\mu (t)}{2}\left(\gamma (t)\frac{\dot{\mu }(t)}{\mu (t)}\right),\beta (t)\frac{1}{2\mu (t)}\left(\gamma (t)\frac{\dot{\mu }(t)}{\mu (t)}\right),\mu (0)v(0)<1,$$

then a nonnegative solution to the following inequality

(2.6)
$$\dot{v}(t)\gamma (t)v(t)+\sigma (t)v^2(t)+\beta (t)$$

satisfies the estimate:

(2.7)
$$0v(t)<\frac{1}{\mu (t)}.$$

Now, we formulate the second lemma, which is an operator-theoretical version of the well-known Gronwall inequality:

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let

(2.8)
$$\frac{dV}{dt}+A(t)V(t)=G(t),V(0)=V_0,$$

where $`A(t),`$ $`G(t),`$ $`V(t)L(H),`$ and $`H`$ is a real Hilbert space. If there exists $`\gamma (t)>0`$ such that

(2.9)
$$(A(t)h,h)\gamma (t)h^2hH,$$

then

(2.10)
$$V(t)e^{\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\gamma (p)𝑑p}\left[\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}G(s)e^{\underset{0}{\overset{s}{}}\gamma (p)𝑑p}𝑑s+V(0)\right].$$

Proof. Take any $`hH.`$ Since $`H`$ is a real Hilbert space one has:

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}V(t)h^2=(\frac{dV}{dt}h,V(t)h)$$

$$=(A(t)V(t)h,V(t)h)+(G(t)h,V(t)h)$$

(2.11)
$$\gamma (t)V(t)h^2+G(t)hV(t)h$$

Denote $`v(t):=V(t)h`$. Inequality (2.11) implies

(2.12)
$$v\dot{v}\gamma (t)v^2+G(t)hv.$$

Divide this inequality by the nonnegative $`v`$ and get a linear first-order differential inequality from which one can derive the desired inequality (2.10). Lemma 2.3 is proved.

## 3. The Convergence Theorem

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`H`$ be a real Hilbert space, $`F:HH`$.

1)Assume that $`0<\epsilon (t)C^1[0,+\mathrm{})`$ converges to zero monotonically and

(3.1)
$$|\dot{\epsilon }(t)|b\epsilon ^2(t)\text{for any}t[0,+\mathrm{}),$$

where $`b>0`$ is a constant.

2) Suppose problem (1.1) is solvable (not necessarily uniquely) and $`\widehat{x}`$ is its solution.

3) There exists a positive number $`R`$ such that $`F`$ is twice Fréchet differentiable in a closed ball $`U(\widehat{x},R\epsilon (0)):=\{x:xH,x\widehat{x}R\epsilon (0)\}`$ and

$$F^{}(x)N_1,F^{\prime \prime }(x)N_2\text{for all}xU(\widehat{x},R\epsilon (0)).$$

4) Let the following inequality be satisfied

(3.2)
$$k+b\epsilon (0)<1,$$

where $`k:=2N_1N_2R+b+\epsilon (0)B(0)+IB(0)\left[F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})+\epsilon (0)I\right].`$

5) For an initial approximation point $`x_0`$ the source-type condition holds

(3.3)
$$x_0U(\widehat{x},R\epsilon (0))\left[\widehat{x}+Ran(F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x}))\right],$$

where $`Ran(F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x}))`$ is the range of the linear operator $`F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})`$, and for some $`w`$, such that $`\widehat{x}x_0=F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})w`$, one has:

(3.4)
$$\frac{1}{R}\frac{3N_1N_2(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))}{1kb\epsilon (0)}<\mathrm{min}\{\frac{1kb\epsilon (0)}{2(k+2+\epsilon (0)B(0))w},\frac{\epsilon (0)}{x(0)\widehat{x}}\}.$$

Then

the solution $`(x(t),B(t))`$ to problem (2.3)-(2.4) exists for all $`t[0,+\mathrm{})`$ and

(3.5)
$$x(t)\widehat{x}<R\epsilon (t).$$

Remark 3.2 There are many $`\epsilon (t)`$ satisfying condition 1) of Theorem 3.1. For example, one may take $`\epsilon (t)=c_0(c_1+t)^a`$, where $`c_0`$ and $`c_1`$ are positive constants and $`a(0,1]`$.

Remark 3.3 Note that assumption (3.3) is not algorithmically verifiable. However, practitioners may try different $`x_0`$ and choose the one for which the algorithm works better, that is, convergence is more rapid and the algorithm is more stable.

If $`F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})`$ is compact and the null space $`N(F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x}))=\{0\}`$, then the range $`Ran(F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x}))`$ is dense in $`H`$, so in any neighborhood of $`\widehat{x}`$ there are points $`x_0`$ for which (3.3) holds. On the other hand, since $`F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})`$ is compact, the set $`R(F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x}))`$ is not closed. Thus, in the same neighborhood there are also points $`x_0`$ for which (3.3) fails to hold. In general, in order to get a convergence theorem in an ill-posed case one needs some additional assumptions on the Fréchet derivative of the operator $`F`$, for example condition (3.3), or some other condition of this type ( see e.g., , condition (2.11)).

Remark 3.4 By the assumption 4) of Theorem 3.5 the first inequality in (3.4) is equivalent to the following one:

(3.6)
$$3N_1N_2R(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))12N_1N_2Rb\epsilon (0)B(0)\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)b\epsilon (0),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(0):=IB(0)\left[F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})+\epsilon (0)I\right]`$. Inequality (3.6) yields

(3.7)
$$R\frac{1b\epsilon (0)B(0)\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)b\epsilon (0)}{(5+3\epsilon (0)B(0))N_1N_2}.$$

If one takes

(3.8)
$$R:=\frac{1b\epsilon (0)B(0)\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)b\epsilon (0)}{(5+3\epsilon (0)B(0))N_1N_2},$$

then condition (3.2) is equivalent to

(3.9)
$$b+\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)+b\epsilon (0)[1+B(0)]+\epsilon (0)B(0)[\epsilon (0)B(0)+\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)+\epsilon (0)]<1.$$

For inequality (3.9) to hold one has to have $`b`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)`$ and $`\epsilon (0)B(0)`$ sufficiently small. The second inequality in (3.4) holds if $`w`$ and $`x_0\widehat{x}`$ are sufficiently small. Such a priori assumptions are typical for the methods of solving nonlinear problems, in particular, for the Newton-type methods.

Remark 3.5 In practice, algorithm (2.3)-(2.4) proved to be efficient. In order to test (2.3)-(2.4) numerically, we considered a two-dimensional inverse gravimetry problem (see , ) and the Feigenbaum equation (see , equation (5.1)). The goal of the experiments was to investigate the choice of the regularization function $`\epsilon (t)`$ in (2.3)-(2.4) and to compare two continuous methods: (2.3)-(2.4) and (2.1). Analyzing the results of practical computations we arrived at the following conclusions:

1. Continuously regularized Gauss-Newton’s scheme (2.1) tends to do well initially, until the value of a regularization function $`\epsilon (t)`$ is not very small. Continuous procedure (2.3)-(2.4) is more stable, and allows one to get the approximate solution with better accuracy.
2. The best numerical results for (2.3)-(2.4) are obtained with $`\epsilon (t)=\epsilon (0)(1+t)^1`$. An approximate range of possible values for $`\epsilon (0)`$ appears to be from $`0.001`$ to $`0.1`$; for larger values the accuracy is lower, and for smaller values the process does not converge.
3. An important task that should be studied next is the stability of the solution towards the noise in the data, and the choice of an optimal regularization parameter (the stopping time in our case) such that the method converges to the solution of (1.1) when the noise level tends to zero. Also one has to analyze under what assumptions on $`F`$ and $`x_0`$ the convergence of the continuous process (2.3)-(2.4) implies the convergence of the corresponding discrete process, obtained by the Euler or the Runge-Kutta finite difference methods.

Proof of Theorem 3.5. The main part of the proof (Steps 1-3) is to show that if $`(x(t),B(t))`$ is a solution to (2.3)-(2.4), then $`x(t)\widehat{x}<R\epsilon (t)`$. Assume the converse. By (3.4) one has the inequality $`x(0)\widehat{x}<R\epsilon (0).`$ Therefore there exists a $`\tau [0,+\mathrm{})`$, such that

(3.10)
$$x(t)\widehat{x}<R\epsilon (t)t[0,\tau )\text{and}x(\tau )\widehat{x}=R\epsilon (\tau ).$$

Step 1. In this step we derive some estimates ( see (3.11)), (3.13) and (3.14) below) for

$$B(t),IB(t)\left[F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})+\epsilon (t)I\right]\text{ and }B(t)F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x}).$$

We assume below that $`t[0,\tau ]`$. Applying Lemma 2.10 with

$$V(t):=B(t),A(t):=F^{}(x(t))F^{}(x(t))+\epsilon (t)I,G(t):=I,$$

one gets

$$B(t)e^{\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\epsilon (p)𝑑p}\left[\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}e^{\underset{0}{\overset{s}{}}\epsilon (p)𝑑p}𝑑s+B(0)\right]e^{\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\epsilon (p)𝑑p}\left[\frac{1}{\epsilon (t)}\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\epsilon (s)e^{\underset{0}{\overset{s}{}}\epsilon (p)𝑑p}𝑑s+B(0)\right]$$

(3.11)
$$=\frac{1}{\epsilon (t)}\left[1e^{\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\epsilon (p)𝑑p}\right]+B(0)e^{\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\epsilon (p)𝑑p}\frac{1}{\epsilon (t)}+B(0).$$

Introduce the notation

(3.12)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(t):=IB(t)\left[F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})+\epsilon (t)I\right].$$

Then

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(t)=\dot{B}(t)\left[F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})+\epsilon (t)I\right]B(t)\dot{\epsilon }(t)$$

$$=\left[F^{}(x(t))F^{}(x(t))B(t)I+\epsilon (t)B(t)\right]\left[F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})+\epsilon (t)I\right]B(t)\dot{\epsilon }(t)$$

$$=\left[F^{}(x(t))F^{}(x(t))+\epsilon (t)I\right](I\mathrm{\Lambda }(t))\left[F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})+\epsilon (t)I\right]B(t)\dot{\epsilon }(t)$$

$$=\left[F^{}(x(t))F^{}(x(t))+\epsilon (t)I\right]\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)+F^{}(x(t))F^{}(x(t))F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})B(t)\dot{\epsilon }(t).$$

Use Lemma 2.10 once again, with

$$V(t):=\mathrm{\Lambda }(t),A(t):=F^{}(x(t))F^{}(x(t))+\epsilon (t)I,$$

$$G(t):=F^{}(x(t))F^{}(x(t))F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})B(t)\dot{\epsilon }(t).$$

From the estimate

$$F^{}(h)F^{}(h)F^{}(y)F^{}(y)=F^{}(h)\left[F^{}(h)F^{}(y)\right]+\left[F^{}(h)F^{}(y)\right]F^{}(y)$$

$$2N_1N_2hy\text{for any}h,yU(\widehat{x},R\epsilon (0)),$$

and from (3.11), (3.10), (3.1) and condition 3) of Theorem 3.1 one obtains:

$$||\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)||e^{\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\epsilon (p)𝑑p}\{\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}[2N_1N_2||x(s)\widehat{x}||+(\frac{1}{\epsilon (s)}+(||B(0)||\frac{1}{\epsilon (s)})e^{\underset{0}{\overset{s}{}}\epsilon (p)𝑑p})|\dot{\epsilon }(s)|]$$

$$e^{\underset{0}{\overset{s}{}}\epsilon (p)𝑑p}ds+||\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)||\}e^{\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\epsilon (p)𝑑p}[(2N_1N_2R+b)\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\epsilon (s)e^{\underset{0}{\overset{s}{}}\epsilon (p)𝑑p}ds+\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}(||B(0)||\frac{1}{\epsilon (s)})$$

$$|\dot{\epsilon }(s)|ds+||\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)||]=(2N_1N_2R+b)[1e^{\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\epsilon (p)𝑑p}]+(||B(0)||\frac{1}{\epsilon (0)})(\epsilon (0)\epsilon (t))+$$

(3.13)
$$+\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)e^{\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\epsilon (p)𝑑p}2N_1N_2R+b+\epsilon (0)B(0)+\mathrm{\Lambda }(0):=k$$

Now denote $`D(t):=B(t)F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})`$. Then by (3.13) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=ID(t)B(t)\epsilon (t)k,`$ and therefore by (3.11)

(3.14)
$$D(t)k+2+\epsilon (0)B(0).$$

Step 2. In this step we derive the differential inequality (see (3.20) below).

Since $`H`$ is a real Hilbert space one has:

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}x(t)\widehat{x}^2=(\dot{x},x(t)\widehat{x})=(B(t)\left[F^{}(x(t))F(x(t))+\epsilon (t)(x(t)x_0)\right],x(t)\widehat{x}).$$

One gets

(3.15)
$$F(x(t))=F^{}(\widehat{x})(x(t)\widehat{x})+K(x(t),x(t)\widehat{x},x(t)\widehat{x}),$$

where

(3.16)
$$K(h,y,z)\frac{N_2}{2}yz\text{for any}hU(\widehat{x},R\epsilon (0)),y,zH.$$

Thus, (3.15), (3.16) and (3.11) yield

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}x(t)\widehat{x}^2(B(t)F^{}(x(t))F^{}(\widehat{x})(x(t)\widehat{x}),x(t)\widehat{x})\epsilon (t)(B(t)(x(t)x_0),x(t)\widehat{x})$$

$$+\frac{N_1N_2(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))}{2\epsilon (t)}x(t)\widehat{x}^3=(B(t)(F^{}(x(t))F^{}(\widehat{x}))^{}F^{}(\widehat{x})(x(t)\widehat{x}),x(t)\widehat{x})$$

$$(B(t)\left[F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})+\epsilon (t)I\right](x(t)\widehat{x}),x(t)\widehat{x})\epsilon (t)(B(t)(\widehat{x}x_0),x(t)\widehat{x})$$

$$+\frac{N_1N_2(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))}{2\epsilon (t)}x(t)\widehat{x}^3.$$

From (3.12) one gets

$$(B(t)\left[F^{}(\widehat{x})F^{}(\widehat{x})+\epsilon (t)I\right](x(t)\widehat{x}),x(t)\widehat{x})=x(t)\widehat{x}^2$$

(3.17)
$$+(\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)(x(t)\widehat{x}),x(t)\widehat{x}).$$

By estimate (3.11)

$$(B(t)(F^{}(x(t))F^{}(\widehat{x}))^{}F^{}(\widehat{x})(x(t)\widehat{x}),x(t)\widehat{x})$$

(3.18)
$$\frac{N_1N_2(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))}{\epsilon (t)}x(t)\widehat{x}^3.$$

Condition 5) of Theorem 3.5 implies:

(3.19)
$$\epsilon (t)(B(t)(\widehat{x}x_0),x(t)\widehat{x})=\epsilon (t)(D(t)w,x(t)\widehat{x}).$$

From (3.17), (3.18), (3.19), (3.13), (3.14) one concludes

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}x(t)\widehat{x}^2\frac{3N_1N_2(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))}{2\epsilon (t)}x(t)\widehat{x}^3(1k)x(t)\widehat{x}^2$$

$$+\epsilon (t)(k+2+\epsilon (0)B(0))wx(t)\widehat{x}.$$

Let $`v(t):=x(t)\widehat{x}`$. Then we arrive at the inequality

(3.20)
$$\dot{v}(1k)v+\frac{3N_1N_2(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))}{2\epsilon (t)}v^2+\epsilon (t)(k+2+\epsilon (0)B(0))w.$$

Step 3. In this step we choose $`\mu (t)\mathrm{}`$ as $`t\mathrm{},`$ such that assumptions (2.5) of Lemma 2.7 are satisfied for inequality (3.20), so that the conclusion $`x(t)\widehat{x}<\frac{1}{\mu (t)}`$ holds.

Choose $`\mu (t)C^1[0,+\mathrm{})`$ to satisfy conditions (2.5) of Lemma 2.7 with

(3.21)
$$\gamma (t):=1k,\sigma (t):=\frac{3N_1N_2(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))}{2\epsilon (t)},$$

(3.22)
$$\beta (t):=\epsilon (t)(k+2+\epsilon (0)B(0))w.$$

Take $`\mu (t)=\frac{\lambda }{\epsilon (t)},`$ where $`\lambda >0`$ is a constant. Then (2.5) can be rewritten as follows:

(3.23)
$$\frac{3N_1N_2(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))}{2\epsilon (t)}\frac{\lambda }{2\epsilon (t)}\left(1k\frac{|\dot{\epsilon }(t)|}{\epsilon (t)}\right),$$

(3.24)
$$\epsilon (t)(k+2+\epsilon (0)B(0))w\frac{\epsilon (t)}{2\lambda }\left(1k\frac{|\dot{\epsilon }(t)|}{\epsilon (t)}\right),$$

(3.25)
$$\frac{\lambda }{\epsilon (0)}x(0)\widehat{x}<1.$$

Inequality (3.23) is equivalent to the following one

(3.26)
$$\lambda \frac{3N_1N_2(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))}{1k\frac{|\dot{\epsilon }(t)|}{\epsilon (t)}}.$$

If one takes

(3.27)
$$\lambda :=\frac{3N_1N_2(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))}{1kb\epsilon (0)},$$

then (3.26) follows from (3.27) and from conditions 1) and 4) of Theorem 3.5. Assumption (3.4) of Theorem 3.5 implies that

(3.28)
$$\frac{3N_1N_2(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))}{1kb\epsilon (0)}<\frac{1kb\epsilon (0)}{2(k+2+\epsilon (0)B(0))w}.$$

For $`\lambda `$ defined by (3.27) inequality (3.28) can be written as

(3.29)
$$\lambda <\frac{1kb\epsilon (0)}{2(k+2+\epsilon (0)B(0))w}.$$

From (3.29) one obtains (3.24).

Finally, from (3.4) one concludes that

(3.30)
$$\frac{3N_1N_2(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))}{1kb\epsilon (0)}<\frac{\epsilon (0)}{x(0)\widehat{x}},$$

which is equivalent to (3.25) for $`\lambda `$ defined by (3.27).

Hence, by Lemma 2.7, one obtains:

$$x(t)\widehat{x}<\frac{\epsilon (t)}{\lambda }.$$

By (3.27) and (3.4)

$$\frac{x(t)\widehat{x}}{\epsilon (t)}<\frac{1kb\epsilon (0)}{3N_1N_2(1+\epsilon (0)B(0))}R\text{for all}t[0,\tau ],$$

which contradicts (3.10). Thus $`x(t)\widehat{x}<R\epsilon (t)`$ whenever $`x(t)`$ is defined.

Step 4. Now let us show that there exists the unique solution to (2.3)-(2.4) on $`[0,+\mathrm{})`$. The initial value problem (2.3)-(2.4) is equivalent to the integral equations:

(3.31)
$$x(t)=x_0+\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}B(s)\mathrm{\Phi }(s,x(s))𝑑s,x_0H,$$

(3.32)
$$B(t)=B(0)+\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}[\phi (s,x(s))B(s)+I]𝑑s,B(0)L(H),$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(s,x):=[F^{}(x)F(x)+\epsilon (s)(xx_0)],$$

$$\phi (s,x):=[F^{}(x)F^{}(x)+\epsilon (s)I].$$

We have already proved that if for some positive number $`T`$ the solution $`(x(t),B(t))`$ to problem (2.3)-(2.4) exists on $`[0,T]`$, then $`x(t)`$ and $`B(t)`$ are bounded in the norm on $`[0,T]`$. Therefore, since the integrands in (3.31) and (3.32) are Lipschitz-continuous, the standard argument yields existence and uniqueness of the global solution to system (3.31)-(3.32). This concludes Step 4.

For convenience of the reader we give a complete proof of Step 4. Let us fix an arbitrary large positive number $`T`$ and use the successive approximation method to solve equations (3.31)-(3.32) on $`[0,T]`$:

(3.33)
$$x_{n+1}(t)=x_0+\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}B_n(s)\mathrm{\Phi }(s,x_n(s))𝑑s,x_0H,$$

(3.34)
$$B_{n+1}(t)=B(0)+\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}[\phi (s,x_n(s))B_n(s)+I]𝑑s,B(0)L(H).$$

Since $`F^{}(x)`$ and $`F^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ are assumed to be bounded in $`U(\widehat{x},R\epsilon (0))`$, and $`\epsilon (t)`$ is positive on $`[0,T]`$, for every $`t[0,T]`$ the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(s,x)`$ has bounded Fréchet derivative with respect to $`x`$ in $`U(\widehat{x},R\epsilon (0))`$. So one has:

$$B_2\mathrm{\Phi }(s,x_2)B_1\mathrm{\Phi }(s,x_1)=(B_2B_1)\mathrm{\Phi }(s,x_2)+B_1(\mathrm{\Phi }(s,x_2)\mathrm{\Phi }(s,x_1))$$

$$A(T)(B_2B_1+x_2x_1)$$

for all $`t[0,T]`$ and $`x_1,x_2U(\widehat{x},R\epsilon (0))`$. Similarly,

$$\phi (s,x_2)B_2\phi (s,x_1)B_1=(\phi (s,x_2)\phi (s,x_1))B_2+\phi (s,x_1)(B_2B_1)$$

$$K(T)(B_2B_1+x_2x_1).$$

Define the norm in a Banach space $`H\times L(H)`$ as follows:

$$(x,B):=x+B.$$

Thus, if $`w_i(t):=(x_i(t),B_i(t))`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, one gets the estimate

$$w_{n+1}(t)w_n(t)\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}B_n(s)\mathrm{\Phi }(s,x_n(s))B_{n1}(s)\mathrm{\Phi }(s,x_{n1}(s))𝑑s$$

$$+\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\phi (s,x_n(s))B_n(s)\phi (s,x_{n1}(s))B_{n1}(s)𝑑s$$

$$\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}(A(T)+K(T))w_n(s)w_{n1}(s)𝑑s\mathrm{}\frac{((A(T)+K(T))T)^n}{n!}const$$

valid on the maximal subinterval $`[0,T_{max}]:=\{t,t[0,T]\text{and}x(t)U(\widehat{x},R\epsilon (0))\}`$. Therefore iterative process (3.33)-(3.34) converges uniformly and determines the unique solution $`(x(t),B(t))`$ of problem (3.31)-(3.32) on $`[0,T_{max}]`$. If $`T_{max}<T`$, it follows from the maximality of the subinterval $`[0,T_{max}]`$ that $`x(T_{max})`$ is a boundary point of $`U(\widehat{x},R\epsilon (0))`$. But, since $`\epsilon (t)`$ is monotone, this contradicts the fact that the inequality $`x(t)\widehat{x}<R\epsilon (t)`$ holds whenever $`x(t)`$ is defined. Hence the unique solution $`(x(t),B(t))`$ to (2.3)-(2.4) exists on $`[0,T]`$ for any $`T>0`$. Consequently, it exists on $`[0,+\mathrm{})`$ and (3.5) is satisfied $`t[0,+\mathrm{})`$. Theorem 3.5 is proved.


text:
# Measurement of hybrid content of heavy quarkonia using lattice NRQCD

## I Introduction

In quantum chromodynamics (QCD), it has been known for some time that mesons ($`q\overline{q}`$) and baryons ($`qqq`$) are not the only composite states for which gauge-invariant propagators may be constructed. Multi-quark states ($`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$, $`qqqq\overline{q}`$, etc.) and states with gluonic excitations, or hybrids ($`q\overline{q}g`$, $`qqqg`$, etc.), can also form the necessary color singlet. It is possible for these states to have quantum numbers ($`J^{PC}`$) different from those allowed for typical hadrons. Such states are termed “exotics” and while they offer significant promise for hybrid and multi-quark state detection, they will not be the subject of our discussion here. Instead, we focus on “non-exotic” heavy hybrid mesons ($`|Q\overline{Q}g`$), those which have quarkonium-like quantum numbers. The true, heavy meson ground state should thus be a mixture of heavy quarkonium and hybrid:

$$|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=A_0|Q\overline{Q}+A_1|Q\overline{Q}g+\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
Heavy quarks within the bound state move with relatively small velocities and thus we expect the rest mass of the quarks to dominate the energy ($`K<<m_q`$). Expanding in the quantity $`\frac{1}{m_q}`$, one finds a non-relativistic approximation to the heavy-quark Hamiltonian (NRQCD) . For simplicity, we keep only the lowest-order kinetic term of the NRQCD Hamiltonian and the lowest-order spin-dependent term:

$$H=H_0+\delta H=\frac{\stackrel{}{D}^2}{2m_q}+c_B\frac{g}{2m_q}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}+\mathrm{},$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{D}`$ is the covariant derivative. Using only the first term in this expansion, the Hamiltonian lacks a spin-flip interaction and there is no mixing between the lowest-lying hybrid and quarkonium states. For the $`J^{PC}=1^{}`$ system, the total quark spin is 1 in the S-wave state. Our operational definition of the hybrid component of a $`1^{}`$ meson is the component with total quark spin of 0; the gluonic excitation (the $`B_i`$ in the meson operator; see below) carries the angular momentum and ensures that the color-octet channel of the quark/anti-quark state contributes to the color-singlet meson propagator. Inclusion of the spin-dependent term allows the mixing of these two states (see Fig. 1). Degeneracies are also lifted with the inclusion of this interaction: e.g., the $`0^+/1^{}`$ mass difference is due to the hyperfine spin-spin interaction and is quadratically dependent upon this term. Without the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}`$, these states are degenerate, as are the P-wave states: $`0^{++},1^{++},2^{++}`$.

NRQCD has been used previously at this order, and beyond, to study heavy hybrids . Recently Drummond et al.  reported seeing no quadratic dependence of the $`1^{}`$ hybrid mass (same source and sink operators) upon the normalization of the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}`$ term, although the mass of the $`0^+`$ hybrid did show effects. The small, if any, dependence of the $`1^{}`$ mass on $`c_B`$ can be taken as evidence that the mixing with the S-wave $`Q\overline{Q}`$ state is small.

We apply a different strategy, allowing us to measure the effect of the spin-dependent interaction to first order. Rather than apply the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}`$ term at every intermediate time slice in the lattice quark propagator, as has been the usual practice with all terms in the NRQCD expansion , we restrict it to a particular intermediate time slice, viewing this interaction as a “perturbation” at a specific time in the lattice. Thus, the unperturbed $`Q\overline{Q}`$ (quark-antiquark spin one) and unperturbed $`1^{}`$ hybrid (quark-antiquark spin zero) states propagate without mixing except at the time slice where the perturbation is applied. Then, using the non-exotic hybrid source and the appropriate quarkonium sink (or vice versa), we extract the off-diagonal matrix element of the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}`$ interaction for this two-state system. From this, we estimate the amount of non-exotic hybrid admixture within the true ground-state using a simple two-state mixing model. We expect that such a result may be useful for studies of the creation and decay of heavy quarkonia via color-octet channels (see, e.g., Ref. ) and models of heavy-quark confinement .

## II The Method

We construct our lattice meson propagators using the NRQCD approach. This effectively turns what would be a boundary value problem - determining the relativistic quark propagators on a periodic lattice - into an an initial value problem since, in the non-relativistic limit, the quarks propagate only forward in time. Using this method, the evolution of the quark propagator in the Euclidean time direction is given by:

$`G(\stackrel{}{x},t+a)=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{aH_0}{2n}}\right)^nU_t^{}(x)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{aH_0}{2n}}\right)^n`$ (3)
$`(1\delta _{t^{},t}a\delta H)G(\stackrel{}{x},t),`$ (4)
where $`H_0`$ and $`\delta H`$ are given above and $`n`$ is a parameter needed for numerical stability  ($`n>\frac{3}{2m_qa}`$; we use $`n=2`$). We also use plaquette tadpole improvement of the gauge links. Note that we apply the interaction term, $`\delta H`$, at only a single intermediate time step, $`t^{}`$.

We use an incoherent sum of point sources: at the source end, we start with a given quark color and spin at all spatial points, without fixing the gauge; at the sink end, we sum over all the contributions where the quark and anti-quark are at the same spatial point. Since the lattices are not gauge-fixed, we expect the contributions from sources with the quark and anti-quark at different spatial points to average to zero. We combine the quark and anti-quark sources (propagators) with the appropriate spin matrices to construct the meson operators at the source (sink) time slices. The meson operators we use are displayed in Table I. The hybrid operators in Table I involve the color magnetic field, with $`J^{PC}=1^+`$. As can be seen from the quantum numbers, this corresponds to a transverse electric gluon mode in a bag model approach. The color magnetic field is calculated using the “clover formulation” (average of field from 4 plaquettes with corners at these points):

$`_{jk}(`$ $`x`$ $`)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[U_j(x)U_k(x+\widehat{j})U_j^{}(x+\widehat{k})U_k^{}(x)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`U_k(x)U_j^{}(x+\widehat{k}\widehat{j})U_k^{}(x\widehat{j})U_j(x\widehat{j})`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`U_j^{}(x\widehat{j})U_k^{}(x\widehat{k}\widehat{j})U_j(x\widehat{k}\widehat{j})U_k(x\widehat{k})`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`U_k^{}(x\widehat{k})U_j(x\widehat{k})U_k(x\widehat{k}+\widehat{j})U_j^{}(x)`$ (8)
$``$ $`\text{herm. conj.}]`$ (9)
We use this form of the chromo-magnetic field (with the appropriate tadpole factor: $`1/u_0^4`$) in the interaction term ($`\delta H`$). The field used to make the hybrid sources and sinks is constructed in the same fashion, with one exception: we use smeared links (sum of the simple link and all 3-staples connecting neighboring lattice sites) in place of the simple links in Eq. (4), the object being to improve the overlap with the hybrid ground state.

Since we are working on lattices with a Euclidean metric (i.e., time is imaginary), the propagators should follow decaying exponentials. The form we use to fit the meson correlators, $`C(t)`$, follows:

$$C(t)=A_0e^{m_0t}+A_1e^{m_1t}.$$
(10)
We include the second term to account for excited-state contributions. The propagators were averaged over a set of quenched lattices with Symanzik 1-loop improved gauge action.

To set the physical scale of our lattices, we use the S-P (spin-averaged) mass difference for bottomonium, a quantity which is relatively insensitive to the quark mass. We also create non-zero momentum operators for the $`1^{}`$ S-wave meson and determine its kinetic mass from the resulting dispersion relation. An interpolation in $`m_q`$ is then performed to match this kinetic mass with the experimentally determined value for the mass of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. This provides us with an estimate of the bottom quark mass, $`m_b`$.

For the “mixed” propagators (different source and sink operators), we expect a propagator of the form

$`C_{mix}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`A_{0,source}^{1/2}A_{0,sink}^{1/2}1^{}(H)\left|c_B{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2m_q}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}\right|1^{}(S)`$ (11)
$``$ $`e^{m_{0,source}t^{}}e^{m_{0,sink}(tt^{})}+\mathrm{}.`$ (12)
Knowing the amplitudes and masses of the source and sink operators from their “unmixed” propagators and fitting this propagator in the region $`t>t^{}`$, we can extract the matrix element from the amplitude of $`C_{mix}(t)`$ at different values of $`t^{}`$. At sufficiently large values of $`t^{}`$, we expect less excited-state contamination from the source operator and hope to find a plateau in the value of the matrix element.

For these mixed propagators, we use the tree-level value for the renormalization factor, $`c_B=1`$, in the interaction term. The final result for the matrix element, however, should contain the appropriate factor for the given value of the lattice spacing. To address this, we choose a non-perturbative approach. We perform additional spectrum runs, applying the interaction term (with $`c_B=1`$ and 2) at all intermediate time slices and for both the quark and anti-quark. By interpolating in the resulting values of the $`0^+/1^{}`$ mass difference to that of experiment (or, in the present case of the $`b\overline{b}`$ system, potential model results), a value for $`c_B^2`$ may be found.

## III Results

The meson correlators were averaged over 165 quenched, $`20^3\times 64`$, $`\beta =8.0`$ lattices with Symanzik 1-loop improved gauge action (see Ref.  for more details on these lattices). Shown in Fig. 2 are the fit masses for the $`1^{}`$(S) and $`0^{++}`$(P) (ground and first-excited state), and the $`1^{}`$ hybrid (ground state only). The results of our chosen fits to the correlators appear in Table II. Using the spin-averaged 1S-1P mass difference of 440 MeV for bottomonium, we find an inverse lattice spacing of $`a^1=1604(25)`$ MeV \[$`a=0.123(2)`$ fm\]. This differs from a previous determination of the lattice spacing for this set of lattices using the quantity $`r_1/a`$ from the static quark potential : $`a^1=1449(4)`$ MeV \[$`a=0.1360(3)`$ fm\].

Using two values of the quark mass, $`m_qa=2.5`$ and 2.8, we were able to interpolate to a physical quark mass by fixing the kinetic S-wave mass to that of experiment ($`M_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=9.46`$ GeV). We find a lattice-regularized bottom quark mass of $`m_b4.18`$ GeV.

Fits to the “mixed” propagators were also performed and the resulting values for the off-diagonal matrix element of the Hamiltonian appear in Fig. 3, along with the associated jackknife errors. The Hamiltonian was then diagonalized and the admixture of hybrid within the true ground state calculated (see Fig. 4). It may seem odd that the relative errors for $`\mathrm{sin}(\theta )`$ are much smaller than those for the matrix element. However, the matrix element is quite strongly correlated with the hybrid/S-wave mass difference and since the mixing angle is roughly equivalent to the ratio of these two quantities, the errors for $`\mathrm{sin}(\theta )`$ tend to be smaller. A plateau is reached in these plots by $`t^{}=8`$. Using the result at $`t^{}=9`$ ($`\chi ^2/d.o.f.<1`$) and interpolating in the quark mass to $`m_ba=2.6`$, we find

$`|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )|Q\overline{Q}+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )|Q\overline{Q}g`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`0.99826(6)|Q\overline{Q}0.059(1)|Q\overline{Q}g,`$ (14)
corresponding to 0.0035(1) probability admixture of hybrid in the $`1^{}`$ bottomonium ground state.

While this result is clearly non-zero, there remain some unresolved issues surrounding the actual numerical value. For one thing, there is the question of the field normalization (i.e., the value for $`c_B`$). To get a handle on this number, we performed additional spectrum runs with the interaction “turned on” for all times. The results for these propagator fits can be found in Table III. The resulting $`0^+/1^{}`$ mass differences ($`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\eta _b}`$) are found to be $`20`$ and $`78`$ MeV for $`c_B=1`$ and 2, respectively. While there is currently no experimental result for the $`\eta _b`$ mass, there are some potential model calculations  which predict this splitting to be in the $`3060`$ MeV range. This would imply a value of $`c_B^21.53.1`$, corresponding to the mixing angle values $`|\mathrm{sin}(\theta )|0.0730.104`$. This range for our value of the mixing angle sits between two values found previously with calculations based upon the MIT bag model : $`|\mathrm{sin}(\theta )|=0.0427`$ and 0.1503. While a value of $`c_BO(1)`$ needed for consistency is encouraging, a more precise numerical result for this parameter remains elusive, mainly due to the fact that the actual $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\eta _b`$ mass splitting is not well known.

Comparison of our result for $`\mathrm{sin}(\theta )`$ with the hybrid mass results of Ref.  is not straight-forward. Whereas our result can be related to s-channel diagrams where the valence gluon scatters off the quark or anti-quark, there are other spin-dependent contributions to the hybrid mass that cannot be taken into account with our first-order result (see e.g., Ref. ), including non-perturbative effects; to include such contributions in the lattice simulation, one needs to apply the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}`$ interaction at all time slices. Since we do have hybrid propagators with such a heavy-quark Hamiltonian, we attempted to extract these hybrid masses for a more direct comparison with the results of Ref. . However, as there is a significant contribution to our hybrid propagators from intermediate mixing with the corresponding S-wave states, these fits do not return reliable hybrid masses. An effective mass plot would be better-suited for determining these hybrid masses; however, our lattices lack the time resolution for finding the necessary plateau at short times. Our time resolution is given by $`a^11600`$ MeV, as compared with $`a_t^14500`$ MeV in Ref. , where they find a plateau in their $`1^+`$ hybrid effective mass plot from $`t410`$. This suggests that we would need finer resolution in the $`1<t<4`$ range to observe a similar plateau. It may be for this reason that our former values (without $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}`$) of the hybrid/S-wave mass splittings are quite large: $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{1H1S}=1.81(12)`$ GeV. This is significantly above the 1.644(17) GeV result quoted in Ref.  and the recent CP-PACS result of 1.56(18) GeV . However, if we use the lattice spacing as determined by the static quark potential, $`a^1=1.449(4)`$ GeV and $`m_ba2.9`$, this splitting (which is relatively insensitive to the quark mass) becomes 1.64(12) GeV. It should also be noted, however, that our heavy quark action is simpler than those used by these groups in that they include the first relativistic correction. The CP-PACS result also includes two flavors of light dynamical quarks.

It would be useful to resolve these issues with a continuum extrapolation as our results thus far are from quenched lattices with only a single value of the coupling. It would also be useful to explore the effects of dynamical quarks.

## acknowledgements

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE FG03 95ER 40906. Computations were performed on the Nirvana cluster at Los Alamos National Laboratory. We would like to thank Ted Barnes for helpful suggestions.