format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), spontaneous symmetry breaking may occur into a dangerous Charge and Color Breaking (CCB) vacuum, therefore, destabilizing the realistic physical ElectroWeak (EW) vacuum . To avoid this danger, CCB conditions must be imposed on the soft supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking terms which enter the scalar potential of the MSSM. Such conditions and their physical consequences have been extensively discussed in the literature in a large variety of directions in the MSSM scalar field space \[see, e.g.,  and references therein\]. CCB vacua associated with the top quark Yukawa coupling represent a special class of dangerous vacua in the sense that they typically deviate largely from D-flat directions and can furthermore develop in the close vicinity of the EW vacuum. Such features were first investigated in ref. in the field direction $`(H_1,H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R,\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L)`$, neglecting possible deviations from the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat direction. In , we considered the restricted plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ and proposed a new method to evaluate analytically, in a fully model-independent way, the Vacuum Expectation Values (VEVs) of the CCB vacuum . We showed that the effect of deviations from the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat direction, typically small in minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) models \[as considered in ref.\], cannot be neglected in a model-independent way and tend to make more restrictive the CCB condition on the trilinear soft term $`A_t`$. This new feature appears in models with a large splitting at the EW scale between the soft squark masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$, as occurs for instance in some string effective field theories . For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`m_{A^0}m_{Z^0}`$, it was also pointed out that the one-loop Higgs maximal mixing for the top squark masses is largely ruled out by CCB considerations , assuming a common soft squark mass $`M_{SUSY}=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$, and taking furthermore a simplified value for the Higgs maximal mixing $`A_t=\sqrt{6}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, which is accurate only for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}\sqrt{M_{SUSY}^2+m_t^2}m_t`$ .
In the present paper, we first summarize our method to evaluate the optimal CCB condition on $`A_t`$ in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ and extend then the latter result by incorporating the possibility of a large mass splitting between the soft squark masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$, taking also for comparison the exact one-loop Higgs maximal mixing. We still concentrate on the asymptotic regime $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}`$, which actually provides a benchmark CCB bound on $`A_t`$ with properties useful for phenomenological applications. In particular, in the extended plane $`(H_1,H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$, this benchmark value proves to put an upper bound on the CCB allowed values for the top squark mixing term $`|\stackrel{~}{A}_t||A_t+\mu /\mathrm{tan}\beta |`$ . We present an analytic approximation for it, accurate within $`1\%`$ in all interesting phenomenological cases. Finally, we consider some physical implications of this bound, including the effect on the top squark mass spectrum and the one-loop upper bound on the lightest CP-even Higgs boson mass.

## 2 The CCB vacuum in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$

At the tree-level, the effective potential in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ reads :

$`V_3`$ $`=`$ $`m_2^2H_2^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2\stackrel{~}{t}_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2\stackrel{~}{t}_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2Y_tA_tH_2\stackrel{~}{t}_L\stackrel{~}{t}_R+Y_t^2(H_2^2\stackrel{~}{t}_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+H_2^2\stackrel{~}{t}_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{t}_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{t}_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2}{8}}(H_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{t}_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\stackrel{~}{t}_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{3}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{8}}(H_2^2\stackrel{~}{t}_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_3^2}{6}}(\stackrel{~}{t}_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{t}_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2`$
where $`H_2`$ denotes the neutral component of the corresponding Higgs scalar $`SU(2)_L`$ doublet, and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$, $`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$ are, respectively, the left and right top squark fields. All fields are supposed to be real. $`H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$, the top quark Yukawa coupling $`Y_t`$ and the trilinear soft term $`A_t`$ are also assumed to be positive, which can be arranged by a phase redefinition of the fields. Finally, positivity for the squared soft squark masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2`$ is assumed to avoid an obvious instability of the potential at the origin of the fields.
As is well-known, this potential becomes negative in the D-flat direction $`|H_2|=|\stackrel{~}{t}_L|=|\stackrel{~}{t}_R|`$, unless the condition :

$$A_t^2(A_t^D)^23(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2+m_2^2)$$
(2)
is verified. If the top quark Yukawa coupling were as small as the Yukawa couplings of the first two generations of quarks, this relation would provide an accurate necessary and sufficient condition to avoid CCB in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ . But this is not the case and large deviations of the CCB vacuum from all D-flat directions are typically observed, making more restrictive the critical CCB bound on $`A_t`$. In fact, looking at the extremal equations associated with the potential $`V_3`$, eq.(1), one finds that the minimum of the potential lies in the D-flat direction only for:

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2=m_2^2.$$
(3)
Violations of these relations trigger deviations from the D-flat directions . In particular, the first relation in eq.(3) is intimately related to the deviation from the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat direction , previously disregarded in . We can conveniently keep track of this feature by defining $`f\stackrel{~}{t}_R/\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$. Alignment of the CCB vacuum in the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat direction will correspond to $`<f>=\pm 1`$.
Replacing $`\stackrel{~}{t}_Rf\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$ in $`V_3`$, eq.(1), which is unambiguous provided by $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L0`$, the extremal equation associated with a non-trivial CCB VEV $`<\stackrel{~}{t}_L>`$ is straightforwardly solved, and gives :

$$<\stackrel{~}{t}_L>^2=2\frac{B_3}{A_3}$$
(4)
with

$`B_3`$ $`=`$ $`H_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{(12Y_t^24g_1^2)f^2+12Y_t^2+g_1^23g_2^2}{12}}2A_tY_tfH_2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2+f^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2`$ (5)
$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`4Y_t^2f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2(4f^21)^2}{18}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2f^4}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2g_3^2(f^21)^2}{3}}`$ (6)
where the field parameters $`H_2,f`$ take their vacuum expectation values $`H_2=<H_2>`$, $`f=<f>`$. Consistency of this solution requires that $`B_30`$, implying on one hand $`<f>0`$ and therefore $`<H_2>,<\stackrel{~}{t}_{L/R}>0`$ . On the other, it is easily shown that for $`A_tA_t^{(0)}`$, where

$$A_t^{(0)}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}\sqrt{1\frac{g_1^2}{3Y_t^2}}+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}\sqrt{1\frac{(3g_2^2g_1^2)}{12Y_t^2}}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}$$
(7)
the global minimum of the potential $`V_3`$, eq.(1), is automatically trapped in the plane $`\stackrel{~}{t}_R=\stackrel{~}{t}_L=0`$ and cannot be lower than the EW vacuum \[In this situation, we have always $`B_30`$, whatever $`<f>`$ is\]. The bound $`A_t^{(0)}`$ therefore provides a very simple sufficient condition on $`A_t`$ to avoid CCB in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ . It is also restrictive enough to secure some interesting model-dependent scenarios. This includes the infrared quasi-fixed point scenario in an mSUGRA context, for both low and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ . In a quite different context, we also mention the effective MSSM recently proposed, coming from an underlying model where the top/stop sector is living in the bulk of an extra dimension . In this case, the trilinear soft term $`|A_t|`$ is related to the soft squark mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$, with $`|A_t|=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$. A quick look at eq.(7) shows that this model is also exempt from a CCB vacuum in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$.

The previous sufficient bound to avoid CCB in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ can be improved. This requires some information on the remaining extremal equations associated with $`H_2`$ and $`f`$. Taking $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L=<\stackrel{~}{t}_L>`$ in the potential $`V_3`$, eq.(1), these equations are straightforwardly obtained. The derivative with respect to $`f`$ provides an equation quadratic in $`H_2`$ and quartic in $`f`$

$$a_3fH_2^2+b_3H_2+c_3f=0$$
(8)
where $`a_3=36Y_t^4(1+f^2)+O(g_i^2),b_3=O(g_i^2),c_3=36Y_t^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2f^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2)+O(g_i^2)`$ \[the exact value of the coefficients $`a_3,b_3,c_3`$ can be found in \]. Numerical investigation shows that, at the CCB vacuum, the gauge contributions $`O(g_i^2)`$ to the coefficients $`a_3,b_3,c_3`$ can be safely neglected. Doing so, the extremal equation, eq.(8), is solved exactly and gives

$$<f>\sqrt{\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2+Y_t^2<H_2>^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2+Y_t^2<H_2>^2}}$$
(9)
A more transparent approximation of the deviation parameter $`<f>`$, independent of the CCB VEV $`<H_2>`$, can be subsequently derived :

$$<f>f_3^{(0)}\sqrt{\frac{A_t^2+2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2}{A_t^2+2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2}}$$
(10)
The accuracy of this approximated value proves to be excellent, whatever the values of the soft parameters $`A_t,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$ are: it fits the exact result $`<f>`$ within $`5\%`$, or even less for not a too large splitting between the soft squark masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$ . It also clearly indicates that alignment of the CCB vacuum in the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat direction is a model-dependent feature which occurs in two different cases:
\- For $`A_t2Max[m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}]`$. However, $`A_t`$ is also very large compared to the critical CCB bound on $`A_t`$ above which CCB occurs.
\- For $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2`$ \[the first mass relation in eq.(3)\]. Then, the potential $`V_3`$, eq.(1), has an underlying approximate symmetry $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$ broken by tiny $`O(g_1^2,g_2^2)`$ contributions. Therefore, any non-trivial CCB extremum is necessarily nearly aligned in the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat direction.
Model-building may favor the latter situation. This occurs approximately, e.g., in mSUGRA models . In ref., such models were investigated, neglecting in a first approximation the effect of the deviation from the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat direction and CCB conditions \[evaluated in the extended plane $`(H_1,H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R,\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L)`$\] were given in terms of the universal soft SUSY breaking parameters at the GUT scale. However, in a model-independent way, the possibility of a large splitting between the soft squark masses is not ruled out and is even favored in some interesting alternatives to the mSUGRA scenarios. Some of them incorporate a substantial amount of non-universality between the soft SUSY breaking terms  and possibly show large violations of the relation $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$ at the EW scale. This occurs, e.g., in some anomaly mediated scenarios . In this case, the effect of the deviation from the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat direction on the critical CCB bound cannot be neglected, as will be illustrated in the following, and must be properly taken into account.

The extremal equation associated with $`H_2`$ is cubic in $`H_2`$ and quartic in $`f`$. It reads :

$$\alpha _3H_2^3+\beta _3H_2^2+\gamma _3H_2+\delta _3=0$$
(11)
where

$`\alpha _3`$ $`=`$ $`36Y_t^4(f^2+1)^2+[3g_3^2(g_1^2+g_2^2)+4g_1^2g_2^2](f^21)^2`$ (12)
$`+6Y_t^2g_1^2(4f^4+6f^21)+18Y_t^2g_2^2(2f^2+1)`$
$`\beta _3`$ $`=`$ $`9A_tY_tf[(12Y_t^24g_1^2)f^2+12Y_t^2+g_1^23g_2^2]`$ (13)
$`\gamma _3`$ $`=`$ $`72A_t^2f^2Y_t^23(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2+f^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2)[(12Y_t^24g_1^2)f^2+12Y_t^2+g_1^23g_2^2]`$ (14)
$`+m_2^2[72Y_t^2f^2+g_1^2(4f^21)^2+9g_2^2+12g_3^2(f^21)^2]`$
$`\delta _3`$ $`=`$ $`36A_tY_tf(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2+f^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2)`$ (15)
This equation, considered as a cubic polynomial in $`H_2`$, may be solved exactly. In a compact trigonomical form, the CCB VEV $`<H_2>`$ reads:

$`<H_2>={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _3}{3\alpha _3}}(12{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{𝒩}}{\beta _3}}cos[{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi +4\pi }{3}}])`$ (16)
$`cos\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{}{2\sqrt{𝒩^3}}},\varphi [0,\pi ]`$ (17)
where

$``$ $``$ $`2\beta _3^39\alpha _3\beta _3\gamma _3+27\alpha _3^2\delta _3`$ (18)
$`𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _3^2+3\alpha _3\gamma _3`$ (19)
where the coefficient $`\alpha _3,\beta _3,\gamma _3,\delta _3`$, eqs.(12-15), should be evaluated with $`f=<f>`$. For clarity, let us add some comments concerning this solution:
\- It can be shown that a CCB vacuum may develop in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ only if the extremal equation eq.(11) has three real roots in $`H_2`$. Then, these roots are found to be positive and the CCB VEV $`<H_2>`$ is given by the intermediate one , which is written in its trigonomical analytic form in eqs.(16-19). $`<H_2>`$ depends on $`<f>`$, for which we have an accurate approximation $`<f>f_3^{(0)}`$, eq.(10). This way, we obtain in turn an accurate approximation for $`<H_2>`$, which fits the exact result within less than $`1\%`$. This accuracy is enough in particular to evaluate the critical CCB bound on $`A_t`$ with a precision of order $`1GeV`$111This precision can be improved at will with the iterative procedure proposed in ..
\- The extremal equation, eq.(11), has three real roots in $`H_2`$ if (and only if) the following condition is verified:

$$𝒞_3^2+4𝒩^30$$
(20)
As noted above, no CCB vacuum may develop for $`𝒞_30`$. Therefore, the quantity $`𝒞_3`$ provides an additional criterion to avoid CCB in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$, which enables us to improve the sufficient bound $`A_t^{(0)}`$, eq.(7). Taking $`f=f_3^{(0)}`$, and giving values to all parameters except $`A_t`$, the equation $`𝒞_3=0`$ can be solved numerically as a function of $`A_t`$. Below the largest positive solution thus obtained, denoted $`A_t^{(1)}`$, the relation $`𝒞_30`$ is always found. Typically, the hierarchy $`A_t^{(1)}A_t^{(0)}`$ holds, except in the unphysical regime where the lightest stop mass is vanishing $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}0`$ . Nevertheless, defining

$$A_t^{suf}Max[A_t^{(0)},A_t^{(1)}],$$
(21)
this quantity may be identified as the optimal sufficient bound on $`A_t`$ below which no CCB vacuum may develop in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$. For $`A_t=A_t^{suf}`$, a consistent local CCB vacuum with real and positive VEVs $`(<H_2>,<\stackrel{~}{t}_L>,<f>)`$ begins to develop and soon becomes global with increasing $`A_t`$ .

The evaluation of the critical CCB bound on $`A_t`$, above which CCB occurs, requires some additional information on the EW vacuum. At the tree-level, this vacuum is determined by the extremal equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2m_2^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 1}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{Z^0}^2}{2}}=0`$ (22)
$`(m_1^2+m_2^2)\mathrm{tan}\beta m_3^2(1+\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )=0`$ (23)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta v_2/v_1`$ is the ratio of the VEVs $`v_1,v_2`$ of the EW vacuum \[with $`v\sqrt{v_1^2+v_2^2}=174GeV`$\]. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$, the minimal value of the EW potential reads:

$$<V>|_{EW}=\frac{[m_2^2m_1^2+\sqrt{(m_1^2+m_2^2)^24m_3^4}]^2}{2(g_1^2+g_2^2)}$$
(24)
At a consistent EW vacuum, this quantity depends only on two free parameters that may conveniently be chosen to be $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the pseudo-scalar mass $`m_{A^0}=\sqrt{m_1^2+m_2^2}`$. The critical CCB bound $`A_t^{CCB}`$ is found by comparing the depth of the potential at the EW vacuum and at the CCB vacuum:

$`CCB`$ $``$ $`<V_3><<V>|_{EW}`$ (25)
$``$ $`A_t>A_t^{CCB}[m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R};m_1,m_2,m_3,Y_t,g_1,g_2,g_3]`$ (26)
The maximal depth of the potential $`V_3`$, eq.(1), can be given an analytical (though complicated) expression by taking the excellent approximations of the CCB VEV’s given in eqs.(4,10,16). This way, we incorporate all possible deviations of the CCB vacuum from all D-flat directions, including the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat one previously disregarded . When all parameters are chosen \[except $`A_t`$\], the critical CCB bound $`A_t^{CCB}`$ is straightforwardly obtained by a numerical scan of the region $`A_tA_t^{suf}`$. We have $`A_t^{CCB}A_t^{suf}`$, because the EW potential is not very deep $`<V>|_{EW}m_{Z^0}^4/(g_1^2+g_2^2)`$, whereas the depth of the CCB potential increases rapidly with $`A_t`$. This simple procedure provides an excellent approximated value for the critical CCB bound which fits the exact result $`A_t^{CCB}`$ with an accuracy of order $`1GeV`$.
Let us add a few words concerning the impact of radiative corrections on $`A_t^{CCB}`$. As is well-known, the results obtained with the tree-level approximation of the potential may incorporate leading one-loop corrections, provided all quantities are evaluated at an appropriate field-dependent scale . This numerical observation was, in fact, intensively used in the context of CCB studies in order to use the relative simplicity of the tree-level potential . For the EW potential at the EW vacuum, the appropriate scale is the SUSY scale $`Q_{SUSY}`$, with $`Q_{SUSY}M_{SUSY}\sqrt{(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2)/2}`$ for $`M_{SUSY}m_t`$, whereas for MSUSY

<
[-0.07cm]
mtsubscript𝑀𝑆𝑈𝑆𝑌

<
[-0.07cm]
subscript𝑚𝑡M_{SUSY}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$<$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}m_{t}, $`Q_{SUSY}`$ should be taken at a more significant SUSY mass. In the vicinity of $`A_tA_t^{suf}`$ $`[A_t^{CCB}]`$, it can be shown that the scale adapted to the CCB potential $`V_3`$, eq.(1), at the CCB vacuum, is also the SUSY scale $`Q_{SUSY}`$. This result, which is in agreement with , is due essentially to the fact that the CCB vacuum proves to be rather close to the EW vacuum . Therefore, provided the tree-level comparison in eq.(25) is performed at the SUSY scale $`Q_{SUSY}`$, the critical bound $`A_t^{CCB}`$ thus obtained should also incorporate leading one-loop corrections.

## 3 The CCB conditions on $`A_t`$ for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$

In this section, we investigate the effect of a mass splitting between the soft squark masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$ on the CCB bounds presented in Sec. II. We focus on the asymptotic regime $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}`$. This choice is motivated by the nice properties of the critical CCB condition on $`A_t`$ in this regime. Before turning to the numerical analysis, let us first briefly comment on the latter.
In the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$, the critical CCB bound $`A_t^{CCB}`$, eq.(26), proves to be decreasing for increasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and increasing for increasing $`m_{A^0}`$. Moreover, in the limit $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}`$, it can be shown that the most restrictive CCB bound in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ is obtained, whatever the values $`m_{A^0}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta (1)`$ are. Therefore, the benchmark value $`A_t^{CCB}|_{\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}}`$ can be considered as an optimal sufficient condition to avoid a dangerous CCB vacuum in this plane:

$$A_tA_t^{CCB}|_{\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}}NoCCBintheplane(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)$$
(27)
We stress however that this interesting property does not prevent a CCB situation from outside the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$. In particular, CCB may still occur in the extended plane $`(H_1,H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$, as a full investigation of the optimal CCB conditions in this plane indeed shows. This will be presented elsewhere . To enlighten the importance of the value $`A_t^{CCB}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}`$, we borrow from this study an interesting property of the CCB bound on the stop mixing term $`\stackrel{~}{A}_tA_t+\mu /\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. As is well-known, this quantity plays a central role in Higgs phenomenology . It can be shown that if $`|\stackrel{~}{A}_t|`$ exceeds some critical value, which depends on $`m_{A^0},\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\mu `$ and also $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$, CCB occurs in the plane $`(H_1,H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$. In the interesting phenomenological region mt~L,mt~R

>
[-0.07cm]
mtsubscript𝑚subscript~𝑡𝐿subscript𝑚subscript~𝑡𝑅

>
[-0.07cm]
subscript𝑚𝑡m_{\tilde{t}_{L}},m_{\tilde{t}_{R}}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$>$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}m_{t}, one finds in addition that this critical value is maximal for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu =0`$ and that this maximal value moreover coincides with the CCB bound $`A_t^{CCB}|_{\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}}`$ obtained in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$. To summarize, $`A_t^{CCB}|_{\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}}`$ also provides a CCB maximal mixing for the stop fields, above which CCB unavoidably occurs in the plane $`(H_1,H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$:

$$|\stackrel{~}{A}_t|A_t^{CCB}|_{\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}}CCBintheplane(H_1,H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)$$
(28)
This important property is our main motivation to study in detail the numerical behaviour of this benchmark value. In the following, we shall also give an accurate analytic approximation for it, which should be quite useful for phenomenological applications and to constrain model-building.

For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta +\mathrm{}`$, the EW vacuum is driven in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ and appears as an additional minimum of the potential $`V_3`$, eq.(1), with VEVs $`v_2^2=2m_{Z^0}^2/(g_1^2+g_2^2)`$, $`<\stackrel{~}{t}_{L/R}>=0`$, giving $`<V>|_{EW}=m_{Z^0}^4/2(g_1^2+g_2^2)`$. Stability of the EW vacuum in the plane $`(\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ is required, otherwise an obvious CCB situation will occur. Therefore, we may write a new CCB condition on $`A_t`$, which merely encodes the physical requirement of avoiding a tachyonic lightest stop mass :

$$A_tA_t^{inst}\frac{\sqrt{(6m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2+6m_t^2+m_{Z^0}^24m_{W^\pm }^2)(3m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2+3m_t^2+2m_{W^\pm }^2)}}{3\sqrt{2}m_t}$$
(29)
As we will see, unlike the D-flat bound $`A_t^D`$, eq.(2), the sufficient bound $`A_t^{suf}`$, eq.(21), and the CCB maximal mixing $`A_t^{CCB}`$, eq.(26), automatically fulfill this requirement. Notice that the instability bound $`A_t^{inst}`$ is only a function of the soft squark masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$, the top mass and the gauge boson masses. This result actually extends to the CCB bounds $`A_t^{suf}`$ and $`A_t^{CCB}`$ \[for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta +\mathrm{}`$\]. In our numerical analysis, we take $`m_t=175GeV`$ and display the CCB bounds as a function of an average of the soft squark masses $`M_{SUSY}\sqrt{(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2)/2}`$, for three different values of the splitting parameter $`rm_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}/m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}=1,2,3`$. The latter parameter will enable to conveniently survey the effect of the CCB vacuum deviation from the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat direction. We remark that splitting parameters as large as $`r=2`$ can be found, for instance, in anomaly mediated scenarios . To be exhaustive, we consider also the possibility of a very large splitting term $`r=3`$.

In Fig.1, we display the optimal sufficient bound $`A_t^{suf}`$, eq.(21), the traditional bound in the D-flat direction $`A_t^D`$, eq.(2), and the instability bound $`A_t^{inst}`$, eq.(29), as a function of $`M_{SUSY}`$. All bounds are normalized to $`\sqrt{6}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}\sqrt{M_{SUSY}^2+m_t^2}`$.
We note first that the sufficient bound $`A_t^{suf}`$ automatically fulfills the important requirement of avoiding a tachyonic lightest stop. We have always $`A_t^{inst}A_t^{suf}`$. A large region \[which depends on $`r`$\] is found where the relation $`A_t^{inst}=A_t^{suf}`$ holds, implying that no dangerous CCB vacuum may exist unless the EW vacuum is unstable. In this interference regime, the EW and the CCB vacua actually overlap and the CCB VEV $`<f>`$ proves to be connected quite simply to the stop mixing angle $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$, with the relation $`<f>=\mathrm{tan}\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ . Here, the slightest deviation of the CCB vacuum from the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat direction must be taken into account in the evaluation of the CCB condition, to avoid a tachyonic stop mass. In contrast, the D-flat bound $`A_t^D`$ has a rather bad behaviour. In particular, for low $`M_{SUSY}`$, notice that it is not restrictive enough to avoid a tachyonic lightest stop.
Comparing the D-flat bound $`A_t^D`$ with the sufficient bound $`A_t^{suf}`$ for $`r=1,2,3`$, a precise indication of the effect of the CCB vacuum deviation from all D-flat directions can be obtained. For large $`M_{SUSY}`$, we observe first that these bounds enter an asymptotic regime, with $`A_t^D`$ larger than $`A_t^{suf}`$. For $`r=1`$, the CCB vacuum is aligned in the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat direction. Therefore, the discrepancy between $`A_t^D`$ and $`A_t^{suf}|_{r=1}`$ is due essentially to the deviation from the $`SU(2)_c\times U(1)_Y`$ D-flat direction, triggered by the large violation of the relation $`M_{SUSY}^2=m_2^2`$, eq.(3). For $`M_{SUSY}=1TeV`$, we have, e.g., $`A_t^DA_t^{suf}|_{r=1}365GeV`$. For $`r=2,3`$, large deviations of the CCB vacuum from the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat direction now occur and the sufficient bound $`A_t^{suf}`$ is lowered. We have, e.g., for $`M_{SUSY}=1TeV`$, $`A_t^DA_t^{suf}|_{r=2}475GeV`$ and $`A_t^DA_t^{suf}|_{r=3}585GeV`$, and the fraction due to the deviation from the $`SU(3)_c`$ D-flat direction represents $`23\%`$ for $`r=2`$ \[$`37.5\%`$ for $`r=3`$\] of the total effect. This illustrates clearly that this additional contribution to the CCB condition may be important and should not be neglected for a large splitting between $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$.

In Fig.2, we display now the CCB maximal mixing $`A_t^{CCB}`$, eq.(26), as a function of $`M_{SUSY}`$, for $`r=1,2,3`$. For comparison, we remark that $`A_t^{CCB}`$ follows closely the sufficient bound $`A_t^{suf}`$ displayed in Fig.1, with $`A_t^{CCB}A_t^{suf}`$ for all values of $`M_{SUSY}`$. In the interference regime previously mentioned, this inequality is saturated and we furthermore have $`A_t^{CCB}=A_t^{inst}`$. For $`M_{SUSY}m_t`$, we find $`A_t^{suf}A_t^{CCB}1.025A_t^{suf}`$ for $`r=1,2,3`$, the lower value being reached for $`M_{SUSY}m_t`$ and the larger for $`M_{SUSY}1.5TeV`$. For large MSUSY

>
[-0.07cm]
700GeVsubscript𝑀𝑆𝑈𝑆𝑌

>
[-0.07cm]
700𝐺𝑒𝑉M_{SUSY}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$>$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}700GeV, we observe also that the CCB bound $`A_t^{CCB}`$ enters an asymptotic regime in which only tiny variations still occur.

In Fig.2, an approximation of the critical CCB bound $`A_t^{CCB}`$ is also displayed. It reads analytically:

$$A_t^{CCB}|_{app.}=\frac{2}{15}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}(21r)\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^3}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2\frac{(1+r)^2(4542\sqrt{3}+2\sqrt{3}r)}{4\sqrt{3}(21r)r}m_t^2}$$
(30)
This approximation fulfills two important requirements: $`A_t^{CCB}|_{app.}\frac{2}{15}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}(21r)m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ for large $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, which is consistent with the numerical behaviour observed; at first order in $`m_t/m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$, $`A_t^{CCB}|_{app.}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}m_t^2`$, as required at the center of the interference regime \[See eq.(43) in ref.\]. We stress that this approximation holds only for $`r1`$. However, numerical investigation shows that no significant variation of $`A_t^{CCB}`$ occurs under the transformation $`r1/r`$ . Accordingly, for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$, the analytical expression eq.(30) for $`A_t^{CCB}|_{app.}`$ should be adapted by redefining $`rm_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}/m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}`$.
For $`M_{SUSY}`$ large enough, Fig.2 shows the excellent accuracy of the approximation $`A_t^{CCB}|_{app.}`$. For all values of $`r`$, it fits the exact result $`A_t^{CCB}`$ within less than $`1\%`$. In contrast, for low $`M_{SUSY}`$, it behaves rather badly. However, this feature occurs only in a region of the parameter space where the lightest stop mass is small, i.e. mt~1

<
[-0.07cm]
100GeVsubscript𝑚subscript~𝑡1

<
[-0.07cm]
100𝐺𝑒𝑉m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$<$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}100\ GeV \[see Fig.3\]. Such a region is nearly completely excluded by experimental data .
Finally, in Fig.2 we display the one-loop Higgs maximal mixing for the stop masses, denoted $`A_t^H`$ in the following. As is well-known, the tree-level lightest CP-even Higgs boson mass receives large one-loop corrections from loops of top and stop quark fields, which are essential to overcome the tree-level upper bound $`m_hm_{Z^0}`$ . For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}`$ and $`m_{A^0}m_t`$, these corrections are maximized and we have in the top-stop approximation :

$`m_h^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{Z^0}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3m_t^4}{8\pi v^2}}[Log{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}}{m_t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4A_t^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}}Log{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}}}`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2A_t^4}{(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2)^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}}Log{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}}})],v=174GeV`$
where the stop masses read:

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1,\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2=\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2}{2}+m_t^2\frac{1}{4}m_{Z^0}^2\sqrt{m_t^2A_t^2+\frac{[6(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2)8m_{W^\pm }^2+5m_{Z^0}^2]^2}{144}}$$
(32)
The Higgs maximal mixing value $`A_t^H`$, which maximizes $`m_h`$ in eq.(31), can be obtained numerically as a function of $`M_{SUSY}`$ and $`r`$. As is well-known, for large $`M_{SUSY}=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}m_t`$, $`A_t^H`$ takes the simple expression: $`A_t^H=\sqrt{6}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$  \[this value is actually used as a normalization factor in Figs.1-2\]. Indeed, this asymptotic behaviour is observed in Fig.2 for $`r=1`$. In addition, Fig. 2 shows that $`A_t^H`$ is decreasing for an increasing splitting between the soft squark masses .
For low $`M_{SUSY}`$, the CCB maximal mixing $`A_t^{CCB}`$ and the Higgs maximal mixing $`A_t^H`$ follow each other closely, showing that $`m_h`$ is maximal for $`A_tA_t^{CCB}`$ \[we have furthermore $`A_tA_t^{inst}`$\]. Notice that $`A_t^H`$ can be lower than $`A_t^{CCB}`$ for MSUSY

<
[-0.07cm]
mtsubscript𝑀𝑆𝑈𝑆𝑌

<
[-0.07cm]
subscript𝑚𝑡M_{SUSY}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$<$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}m_{t}, though just slightly and, moreover, in an unphysical region where the lightest stop mass is vanishing $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}0GeV`$ \[see Fig.3\] 222Some residual gauge contributions are actually neglected in the writing of eq.(31) in order to gain approximate independence for $`m_h`$ with respect to the renormalization scale $`Q`$ . For low $`M_{SUSY}`$, such contributions may presumably restore the hierarchy $`A_t^HA_t^{CCB}`$.. For larger values of $`M_{SUSY}`$, the CCB maximal mixing clearly rules out the Higgs maximal mixing. For $`M_{SUSY}=1TeV`$, $`A_t^{CCB}`$ is about $`10\%`$ below $`A_t^H`$, for $`r=1,2,3`$. Thus, the large exclusion already observed in ref. for equal soft squark masses is also found in the presence of a large mass splitting.

In Fig.3, we compare the bounds on the top squark mass spectrum for the CCB and the Higgs maximal mixing values. In both cases, we display below \[respectively, above\] the no-mixing line, i.e. $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1,\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2=M_{SUSY}^2+m_t^2m_{Z^0}^2/4`$, the corresponding lower \[respectively, upper\] bounds on the lightest stop mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ \[respectively, the heaviest stop mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$\]. For large $`M_{SUSY}`$, the allowed range for the top squark mass spectrum is enlarged for an increasing splitting between the soft squark masses, despite the decrease of the CCB and the Higgs maximal mixing values for increasing $`r`$ \[see Fig.2\]. Obviously, the CCB bounds on the top squark mass spectrum are more restrictive than the Higgs maximal mixing ones. This effect is however not very large, although not negligible for $`r=1`$. For instance, for $`M_{SUSY}=1TeV`$, we have respectively $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}(25.5,16.5,14.5)GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}(17,7,4)GeV`$, for $`r=1,2,3`$.
Fig.3 exhibits another interesting feature. Taking conservatively mt~1

>
[-0.07cm]
100GeVsubscript𝑚subscript~𝑡1

>
[-0.07cm]
100𝐺𝑒𝑉m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$>$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}100\ GeV as an experimental limit on the lightest stop mass , we find that a stop mixing value as large as the CCB maximal mixing is excluded in a large part of the parameter space, i.e. MSUSY

<
[-0.07cm]
(310,M_{SUSY}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$<$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}(310, $`360,440)GeV`$ for $`r=1,2,3`$. In the respective domains, the EW vacuum is not threatened by the CCB vacuum in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$, and is automatically stable. This result illustrates how a precise study of CCB conditions can produce refined statements concerning metastability of the EW vacuum333In the metastability domain, we further remark that the analytic expressions for the VEV’s of the CCB vacuum presented in the last section should also be very useful in precisely evaluating the CCB metastability condition on $`A_t`$ , for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. .

In Fig.4, we finally compare the one-loop upper bound on the CP-even Higgs boson $`m_h`$ in the top-stop approximation, eq.(31), for the CCB and the Higgs maximal mixing values. In both cases, this bound is decreasing with increasing $`r`$, but the effect is rather small, at most $`23GeV`$. The mass discrepancy between the CCB and the Higgs maximal mixing cases is negligible for $`M_{SUSY}500GeV`$. It is slowly increasing with $`M_{SUSY}`$, but is still small for $`M_{SUSY}=1500GeV`$, where it is $`1GeV`$ for $`r=1,2,3`$. Let us note that in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime investigated here, $`m_h`$ may also receive at one-loop level important additional contributions, coming in particular from the bottom/sbottom sector . Such contributions would modify the numerical upper bound on $`m_h`$, but not the discrepancy between the CCB and the Higgs maximal mixing values presented here, which depends essentially on the top-stop contribution.

Thus, the numerical benefit of taking the CCB maximal mixing rather than the exact one-loop Higgs maximal mixing to constrain the top squark mass spectrum and the one-loop upper bound on $`m_h`$, is not very large (although not always negligible). However, on theoretical ground, this statement must be completed by stressing that the requirement of avoiding a dangerous CCB vacuum provides a strong and independent physical motivation to consider top squark mixing terms smaller than the Higgs maximal mixing. The latter in contrast represents a benchmark mixing, useful essentially in keeping track of the value that maximizes the lightest CP-even Higgs boson mass. Moreover, outside this context, the CCB maximal mixing can have more drastic phenomenological implications. For instance, at the tree-level, it was shown that the cross section of production of the lightest CP-even Higgs boson $`h`$ in association with a lightest stop pair is strongly enhanced for a large stop mixing term $`|\stackrel{~}{A}_t|\sqrt{6}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ and can even exceed the production cross section in association with a top quark pair at the CERN Large Hadron Collider . However, this interesting window for the discovery of supersymmetric particles opens for a lightest stop mass light enough at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_t`$, therefore in a region of the parameter space where the optimal CCB conditions are very restrictive. Clearly, Figs.2-3 show that the two requirements: a light stop mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_t`$ and a large stop mixing $`|\stackrel{~}{A}_t|\sqrt{6}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ are in conflict \[we note that CCB occurs in the plane $`(H_1,H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ for $`|\stackrel{~}{A_t}|A_t^{CCB}|_{\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}}`$, eq.(28)\]. Hence, we expect a dramatic reduction of the cross section of such a process in the CCB allowed region of the parameter space444It remains to be determined if in some regions of the parameter space, this process is still favored compared to the production rate in association with a top quark pair. This will be the subject of future investigations..
This example illustrates the phenomenological usefulness of the CCB maximal mixing $`A_t^{CCB}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}`$, considered in this paper. As noted before, this benchmark mixing can also be used to avoid metastability of the EW vacuum in model-dependent scenarios, which unavoidably occurs if $`|\stackrel{~}{A}_t|A_t^{CCB}|_{\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}}`$ at the SUSY scale. In these contexts, the simple approximation $`A_t^{CCB}|_{app.}`$, eq.(30), should be of particular interest. Moreover, it is definitely more reliable than the traditional CCB bound in the D-flat direction $`A_t^D`$, eq.(2), often considered as a first guess of the impact of CCB conditions, but which largely underestimates the restrictive power of the latter.

Finally, we remark that two-loop contributions provide important contributions to $`m_h`$ and induce a displacement of the Higgs maximal mixing, which may become more restrictive than the CCB maximal mixing $`A_t^{CCB}`$: for $`m_{A^0},M_{SUSY}m_{Z^0}`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}`$ and $`r=1`$, $`A_t^H|_{2loop}2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ , whereas $`A_t^{CCB}2.17m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$. However, at two-loop level, a precise investigation of the effect of CCB conditions on the Higgs boson mass $`m_h`$ requires the evaluation of the one-loop CCB bound $`A_t^{CCB}|_{1loop}`$. This value incorporates in particular contributions which escape our tree-level improved CCB bound $`A_t^{CCB}`$, evaluated at the SUSY scale. Therefore, the previous comparison seems somewhat misleading. However, it raises the important question of the hierarchy between $`A_t^{CCB}|_{1loop}`$ and $`A_t^H|_{2loop}`$. For low MSUSY

<
[-0.07cm]
mtsubscript𝑀𝑆𝑈𝑆𝑌

<
[-0.07cm]
subscript𝑚𝑡M_{SUSY}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$<$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}m_{t}, we remark that the relation $`A_t^{CCB}A_t^{inst}A_t^H`$ \[see Figs.1-2\] should persist at the next loop level. For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, it is due essentially to the presence of an interference regime where the CCB vacuum and the EW vacuum overlap. At the one-loop level, the EW vacuum is still driven in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and such a regime should therefore also be found. For $`M_{SUSY}m_t`$, things are not so clear. However, we may reasonably expect that one-loop corrections will also lower the CCB maximal mixing, as occurs for the Higgs maximal mixing, implying presumably the hierarchy $`A_t^{CCB}|_{1loop}A_t^H|_{2loop}`$. This expectation can be checked only by a complete one-loop investigation of the CCB conditions in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$, for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, which we plan to do in the future.

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper, we investigated the optimal CCB condition on $`A_t`$ in the plane $`(H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$, taking into account the possibility of a large mass splitting between the soft squark masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$, as occurs in interesting models . We essentially focused on the asymptotic regime $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =+\mathrm{}`$, motivated by the nice features of the CCB bound in this regime. In particular, a complete investigation of CCB conditions in the extended plane $`(H_1,H_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$, which will be presented elsewhere , shows that the stop mixing term $`\stackrel{~}{A}_t`$, in absolute value, should not exceed this benchmark value, otherwise CCB unavoidably occurs. This CCB bound should therefore be useful for phenomenological applications. For this reason, we presented an accurate analytic approximation for it, which fits the exact result within less than $`1\%`$ in the interesting phenomenological region where mt~1

>
[-0.07cm]
100GeVsubscript𝑚subscript~𝑡1

>
[-0.07cm]
100𝐺𝑒𝑉m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$>$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}100\ GeV.
For $`M_{SUSY}m_t`$, we showed that the one-loop Higgs maximal mixing is ruled out by more than $`10\%`$, whatever the splitting between the soft squark masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$ is. Compared to the Higgs maximal mixing, the effect of the CCB maximal mixing on the top squark mass spectrum and on the one-loop upper bound on $`m_h`$ is not very large, though not always negligible. We pointed out however that larger effects can be expected in Higgs phenomenology, which can be more sensitive to such an exclusion. Further investigations are in progress in this direction.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship, under contract No HPMF-CT-1999-00363. I would like to thank G.J. Gounaris and P.I. Porfyriadis for discussions. Special thanks also go to G. Moultaka for useful comments and for reading the manuscript.


text:
# Quantum Cloning Machines of a 𝑑-level System

## Abstract

The optimal $`N`$ to $`M`$ ($`M>N`$) quantum cloning machines for the $`d`$-level system are presented. The unitary cloning transformations achieve the bound of the fidelity.

No-cloning theorem is one of the most fundamental differences between classical and quantum information theories. It tells us that an unknown quantum state can not be copied perfectly. This no-cloning theorem has important consequences for the whole quantum information processing. However, no-cloning theorem does not forbid imperfect cloning, and it is interesting to know how well we can copy an unknown quantum state. Bužek and Hillery introduced a universal quantum cloning machine (UQCM) for an arbitrary pure input state. It produces two identical copies whose quality is independent of the input state. It was proved that the Bužek and Hillery UQCM is optimal by using the fidelity as measurement . The general optimal quantum cloning transformation with $`N`$ identical pure input states and $`M`$ copies was proposed by Gisin and Massar. And the no-cloning theorem was also extended to other cases.

The UQCM presented by Bužek, Hillery and Gisin, Massar is for the 2-level quantum system. The 2-dimensional Hilbert space is spanned by 2 orthonormal basis vectors $`|1,|2`$ ($`|,|`$). For a $`d`$-level quantum system, the $`N`$ to $`M`$ optimal quantum cloning is formulated by Werner and Keyl and Werner. They have shown that the optimal cloning map to obtain $`M`$ optimal clones from $`N`$ identical input states is the projection of the direct product of the $`N`$ input states and $`MN`$ identity states onto the symmetric subspace of $`M`$ particles. The optimal fidelity is obtained from the so-called Black Cow factor. Bužek and Hillery  presented the universal 1 to 2 quantum cloning transformation of states in $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert space. Albeverio and Fei extended this result to 1 to $`M`$ cloning, and a special case of $`N`$ to $`M`$ cloning in which the input state is a restricted $`N`$ identical $`d`$-level quantum system. In this paper, generalizing the results in Ref., we shall present the optimal $`N`$ to $`M`$ unitary cloning transformation for the $`d`$-level system. The fidelity achieves the optimal fidelity given by Werner . Our results recover the previous results in Ref. for special values of $`N`$, $`M`$ and $`d`$. The cloning transformation presented in this paper should be the physical implementation of the optimal cloning map given in Ref.. The result is useful in obtaining the quantum networks  and the remote information concentration.

A $`d`$-level quantum system is spanned by the orthonormal basis $`|i`$ with $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$. And an arbitrary pure state takes the form $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=_{i=1}^dx_i|i`$ with $`_{i=1}^d|x_i|^2=1`$. The $`N`$ to $`M`$ quantum cloning means that we map by unitary transformation $`N`$ pure input states

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^NR{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N!}{n_1!\mathrm{}n_d!}}}x_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}n_d^{n_d}|𝐧R`$ (1)
to $`M`$ copies in $`|𝐦R_{\mathrm{𝐧𝐦}}`$, where vector $`𝐧`$ denotes $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_d`$, $`|𝐧=|n_1,\mathrm{}n_d`$ is a completely symmetric and normalized state with $`n_i`$ systems in $`|i`$, this state is invariant under permutations of all $`N`$ $`d`$-level qubits. $`R`$ denotes $`MN`$ blank copies and the initial state of the cloning machine, $`R_{\mathrm{𝐧𝐦}}`$ are internal states of the cloning machine, where $`_{𝐧=0}^N`$ means sum over all variables under the condition $`_{i=1}^dn_i=N`$, we also have $`_{i=1}^dm_i=M`$. More explicit, we need to find unitary transformations $`U_{NM}`$ to map $`|𝐧`$ to $`|𝐦`$. We use fidelity $`F`$ to describe the quality of the copies $`F=\mathrm{\Psi }|\rho ^{out}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where $`\rho ^{out}`$ denotes reduced density operator of each output $`d`$-level qubit by taking partial trace over all but one output $`d`$-level qubits.

We propose the $`N`$ to $`M`$ quantum cloning transformation for $`d`$-level quantum system as follows,

$`U_{NM}|𝐧R={\displaystyle \underset{𝐣=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}\alpha _{\mathrm{𝐧𝐣}}|𝐧+𝐣R_𝐣,`$ (2)
where $`𝐧+𝐣=𝐦,i.e.,_{k=1}^dj_k=MN`$, $`R_𝐣`$ denotes the orthogonal normalized internal states of the UQCM, and

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{𝐧𝐣}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(MN)!(N+d1)!}{(M+d1)!}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n_k+j_k)!}{n_k!j_k!}}}.`$ (3)
This explicit construction of the unitary cloning transformation is the essence of this paper. The dimension of the ancilla is $`\frac{(MN+d1)!}{(MN)!(d1)!}`$. The $`N`$ to $`M`$ cloning in Ref. corresponds to the case $`n_i=N`$ in the above relations.

As an example, we present the $`N`$ to $`M`$ quantum cloning transformation for the 2-level system since it is simple and is the physically interesting case. Gisin and Massar’s UQCM from $`N`$ to $`M`$ for the 2-level system is well known. Our quantum cloning transformation turns out to be a different but an equivalent form. Suppose the pure input state takes the form $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\alpha |+\beta |`$, the $`N`$ identical input qubits are thus written as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^N={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha ^{Nk}\beta ^k\sqrt{C_N^k}|(Nk),k,`$ (4)
where $`|(Nk),k`$ denotes the symmetric and normalized state with $`Nk`$ qubits in the state $`|`$ and $`k`$ qubits in the state $`|`$, and we have $`C_N^k=\frac{N!}{(Nk)!k!}`$ in standard notation. According to (2,3), we can write the quantum cloning transformation for the qubits case as,

$`U_{NM}|(Nk),kR={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}\alpha _{kj}|(Mkj),(k+j)R_j,`$ (5)
$`\alpha _{kj}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(MN)!(N+1)!}{k!(Nk)!(M+1)!}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(k+j)!(Mkj)!}{j!(MNj)!}}}.`$ (6)
The reduced density operator describing the state of each ouput is given by

$`\rho ^{out}`$ $`=`$ $`||({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}|\alpha |^{2N2k}|\beta |^{2k}\alpha _{kj}^2C_N^k{\displaystyle \frac{Mkj}{M}})`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`||({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}|\alpha |^{2N2k}|\beta |^{2k}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\alpha ^{}}}\alpha _{kj}\alpha _{(k+1)j}\sqrt{C_N^kC_N^{k+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(k+j+1)(Mkj)}}{M}})`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`||({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}|\alpha |^{2N2k}|\beta |^{2k}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha }}\alpha _{kj}\alpha _{(k+1)j}\sqrt{C_N^kC_N^{k+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(k+j+1)(Mkj)}}{M}})`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`||({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}|\alpha |^{2N2k}|\beta |^{2k}\alpha _{kj}^2C_N^k{\displaystyle \frac{k+j}{M}}).`$ (10)
With the help of the definition, the fidelity of the quantum cloning transformation can thus be calculated as

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{MN+M+N}{M(N+2)}}.`$ (11)
This is the optimal fidelity which can be achieved. We thus see that the quantum cloning transformation (6) is optimal and is equivalent to the UQCM given by Gisin and Massar.

Finally, we present the formula for the $`d`$-level quantum system. The input states are $`N`$ identical states given in (1). By use of the transformation in (2,3), the output reduced density operator at each $`d`$-level qubit can be written as

$`\rho ^{out}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}|ii|\left({\displaystyle \underset{𝐧=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐣=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|x_k|^{2n_k}(n_k+j_k)!}{(n_k!)^2j_k!}}){\displaystyle \frac{N!(MN)!(N+d1)!}{(M+d1)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n_i+j_i)}{M}}\right)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{il}{\overset{d}{}}}|il|\left({\displaystyle \underset{𝐧=0,n_l<N}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐣=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|x_k|^{2n_k}(n_k+j_k)!}{(n_k!)^2j_k!}}){\displaystyle \frac{x_l^{}}{x_i^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{N!(MN)!(N+d1)!}{(M+d1)!M}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_i(n_l+j_l+1)}{n_l+1}}\right).`$ (13)
The fidelity can be calculated as

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{N(d+M)+MN}{(d+N)M}}.`$ (15)
This is the optimal fidelity achieved by universal quantum cloning transformation for a $`d`$-level system given by Werner and Keyl and Werner. Thus the UQCM given in (2,3) is optimal. As the case of 1 to 2 UQCM , the cloning transformation in this letter can also be applied for the arbitrary impure states cloning by considering the input density operator as $`_{ij}A_{ij}|\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{NN}\mathrm{\Psi }_j|`$. The fidelity keeps the same (15) as the case of pure input state.

To summarize, we have presented the optimal unitary cloning transformations with $`N`$ identical unknown input states to $`M`$ copies for the $`d`$-level system. As the results in Ref., the output of the UQCM in this letter is completely symmetric. If we want to have a higher fidelity, for example, in the first output $`d`$-level qubit than the optimal fidelity, the fidelity in other output $`d`$-level qubits will decrease. We give a simple and limited example: the input are $`N`$ identical states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }^{N1}`$, in the cloning transformation, we keep the first $`d`$-level qubit unchanged while the other $`N`$-1 qubits are changed by the optimal cloning transformation. The fidelity for the first output $`d`$-level qubit is 1, while the fidelity of other $`d`$-level qubits equal to the case of $`N1`$ to $`M1`$ cloning whose fidelity is smaller than the case of $`N`$ to $`M`$ cloning. In the optimal UQCM (2), for a fixed $`M`$, because that the input $`|𝐧`$ always keeps in the output state $`|𝐦`$, we can see that the more quantum information is available, the better fidelity of the copies we can get. We remark that, similar to 2-dimensional case, the $`N`$ to $`N+1`$ UQCM is much simple, the right hand side of (2) contains only $`d`$ terms for every $`|𝐧`$, and the UQCM needs only $`d`$ internal states altogether.

In order to construct the quantum networks to realize the optimal quantum cloning, the results in this paper which give the cloning transformations for all symmetric input states should be useful. Different from the quantum networks, the optimal quantum cloning realized via photon stimulated emission was proposed for the 2-level system in . For the d-level system, a similar result should also be found with a generalized photon-atom interaction Hamiltonian.

Acknowlegements: One of the authors, H.F. acknowleges the support of JSPS, and the hospitality of Wadati group in Department of Physics, University of Tokyo where part of this work were done. We thank X.B.Wang and G.Weihs for useful discussions.