text:
# References

hep-ph/0103178

Soft Supersymmetry Breaking, Scalar Top-Charm Mixing and Higgs Signatures

J. L. Diaz-Cruza, Hong-Jian Heb, C.–P. Yuanc

a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 92710, USA

b The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA

c Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA

## Abstract

The squark mass-matrix from the soft supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking sector contains a rich flavor-mixing structure that allows $`O(1)`$ mixings among top- and charm-squarks while being consistent with all the existing theoretical and experimental bounds. We formulate a minimal flavor-changing-neutral current scheme in which the squark mixings arise from the non-diagonal scalar trilinear interactions. This feature can be realized in a class of new models with a horizontal $`U(1)_H`$ symmetry which generates realistic quark-mass matrices and provides a solution to the SUSY $`\mu `$-problem. Finally, without using the mass-insertion approximation, we analyze SUSY radiative corrections to the $`H^\pm bc`$ and $`h^0tc`$ couplings, and show that these couplings can reveal exciting new discovery channels for the Higgs boson signals at the Tevatron and the LHC.
PACS numbers: 12.60.-i, 12.15.-y, 11.15.Ex

1. Introduction

Weak-scale supersymmetry (SUSY) , as a leading candidate for new physics beyond the standard model (SM), sensibly explains electroweak symmetry breaking, but leaves the understanding of flavor sector as a major challenge. Being a new fundamental space-time symmetry between fermions and bosons, SUSY necessarily extends the SM flavor structure to include superpartners for all fermions and thus adds further puzzles to the flavor physics. To be consistent with the experimental data, supersymmetry has to be broken. The breaking of the SUSY lifts the mass spectrum of the superpartners and is parametrized by the soft-breaking Lagrangian of the Minimal Supersymmetric SM (MSSM) with a large number of free parameters. The soft breaking sector is often problematic with low-energy flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) data without making specific assumptions about its free parameters. One of the most popular assumptions is the proportionality of the scalar trilinear $`A`$-terms to the fermion Yukawa couplings. This is however not a generic feature from the string-theory constructions, and certain forms of non-diagonal $`A`$-terms and their interesting implications were studied recently .

In this work, we focus on the flavor-mixings of three-family squarks which originate from the scalar mass and the trilinear interaction terms. We observe that the current data mainly suppress the FCNCs associated with the first two family squarks (and in some cases, with the first and third families), but allow the flavor-mixings between the second- and third-family squarks, the scharm ($`\stackrel{~}{c}`$) and stop ($`\stackrel{~}{t}`$), to be as large as $`O(1)`$ . Furthermore, the $`O(1)`$ $`\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{c}`$ mixings arising from the non-diagonal $`A`$-term are consistent with the theoretical bounds derived from avoiding the charge-color breaking (CCB) as well as maintaining the vacuum stability (VS) . Taking a bottom-up approach, we first formulate a minimal SUSY FCNC scenario, called the Type-A models, in which all the observable FCNC effects come from the non-diagonal trilinear $`A`$-term in the $`\stackrel{~}{c}\stackrel{~}{t}`$ sector. Then, using the simplest horizontal $`U(1)_H`$ symmetry (à la Froggatt-Nielsen ), we construct a class of new models, called the Type-B models which not only exhibit similar flavor-mixings in the $`\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{c}`$ sector but also generate realistic quark-mass/mixing pattern and provide a solution to the SUSY $`\mu `$-problem. Such minimal FCNC schemes can reduce the general $`6\times 6`$ squark-mass-matrix down to a $`4\times 4`$ or $`3\times 3`$ matrix involving only the $`\stackrel{~}{c}\stackrel{~}{t}`$ sector, and therefore simplify the exact squark mass-diagonalization and rotations without invoking the crude mass-insertion approximation. This allows quantitative understanding and predictions of the relevant FCNC signatures from the squark sector, and thus provides reliable probes to the fundamental SUSY flavor structure encoded in the soft-breaking Lagrangian.

As we will show, exploring the SUSY flavor sector is also important for revealing exciting new discovery signatures from the weak-scale supersymmetry, in addition to probing the mechanism of soft SUSY breaking. Applying the minimal FCNC schemes, we analyze the SUSY radiative corrections to the $`H^\pm bc`$ coupling and show that this flavor-mixing coupling can be significant to provide new discovery signals of charged Higgs via charm-bottom fusion  at the on-going Fermilab Tevatron Collider and the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Then, we further study the flavor changing top-decays into the charm-quark and lightest neutral Higgs boson in our schemes, and their observability at the LHC.

2. Minimal Supersymmetric FCNC Models

2.1. Type-A Minimal SUSY FCNC Models with Non-Diagonal $`A`$-Term

The MSSM soft-breaking squark-sector contains the following quadratic mass-terms and trilinear $`A`$-terms:

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^{}(M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2)_{ij}\stackrel{~}{Q}_j\stackrel{~}{U}_i^{}(M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}^2)_{ij}\stackrel{~}{U}_j\stackrel{~}{D}_i^{}(M_{\stackrel{~}{D}}^2)_{ij}\stackrel{~}{D}_j+(A_u^{ij}\stackrel{~}{Q}_iH_u\stackrel{~}{U}_jA_d^{ij}\stackrel{~}{Q}_iH_d\stackrel{~}{D}_j+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.),\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
with $`i,j=1,2,3`$ being the family indices. This gives a generic $`6\times 6`$ mass matrix,

$$\stackrel{~}{}_u^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{LL}^2\hfill & M_{LR}^2\hfill \\ M_{LR}^2\hfill & M_{RR}^2\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(2)
in the up-squark sector, where

$$\begin{array}{cc}M_{LL}^2\hfill & =M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2+M_u^2+\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{cos}2\beta (4m_w^2m_z^2),\hfill \\ M_{RR}^2\hfill & =M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}^2+M_u^2+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{cos}2\beta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _wm_z^2,\hfill \\ M_{LR}^2\hfill & =A_uv\mathrm{sin}\beta /\sqrt{2}M_u\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
with $`m_{w,z}`$ the masses of $`(W^\pm ,Z^0)`$ and $`M_u`$ the up-quark mass matrix. For convenience, we will choose the super Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) basis for squarks so that in Eq. (3), $`A_u`$ is replaced by $`A_u^{}=K_{UL}A_uK_{UR}^{}`$ and $`M_u`$ by $`M_u^{\mathrm{diag}}`$, etc, with $`K_{UL,R}`$ the rotation matrices for diagonalizing $`M_u`$ to $`M_u^{\mathrm{diag}}`$. In our minimal Type-A scheme, we consider all large FCNCs to solely come from non-diagonal $`A_u^{}`$ in the up-sector, and those in the down-sector to be negligible, i.e., we define, at the weak scale,

$$A_u^{}=(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& x\\ 0& y& 1\end{array})A,$$
(4)
where, $`x`$ and $`y`$ can be of $`O(1)`$, representing a naturally large flavor-mixing in the $`\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{c}`$ sector. Such a minimal scheme of SUSY FCNC is compelling as it is fully consistent with the stringent CCB/VS theory bounds  as well as the existing data . (In the case that the CKM matrix is generated from the down-quark sector alone , $`A_u^{}`$ simply reduces back to $`A_u`$.) Similar pattern may be also defined for $`A_d`$ in the down-sector, but the strong CCB/VS bounds permit $`O(1)`$ $`\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{s}`$ mixings only for very large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ because $`m_bm_t`$. Thus, to allow a full range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ value, we consider an almost diagonal $`A_d`$. Moreover, indentifying the non-diagonal $`A_u`$ as the only source of the observable FCNC phenomena in the Type-A models implies the squark-mass-matrices $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q},\stackrel{~}{U}}^2`$ in Eqs. (2)-(3) to be nearly diagonal. For simplicity, we define

$$M_{LL}^2M_{RR}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐈_{3\times 3},$$
(5)
with $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0`$ a common scale of scalar-masses .

Within this minimal Type-A scheme, we observe that the first family squarks $`\stackrel{~}{u}_{L,R}`$ decouple from the rest in (2) so that the $`6\times 6`$ mass-matrix is reduced to $`4\times 4`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{ct}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\stackrel{~}{m}_0^2& 0& 0& A_x\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{m}_0^2& A_y& 0\\ 0& A_y& \stackrel{~}{m}_0^2& X_t\\ A_x& 0& X_t& \stackrel{~}{m}_0^2\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
for squarks $`(\stackrel{~}{c}_L,\stackrel{~}{c}_R,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$, where

$$\begin{array}{c}A_x=x\widehat{A},A_y=y\widehat{A},\widehat{A}=Av\mathrm{sin}\beta /\sqrt{2},X_t=\widehat{A}\mu m_t\mathrm{cot}\beta .\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
In Eq. (6), we ignore tiny terms of $`O(m_c)`$ or smaller. The reduced squark mass matrix (6) has 6 zero-entries in total and is simple enough to allow an exact diagonalization. Especially, for the cases of (i) $`x0,y=0`$, (called Type-A1) and (ii) $`x=0,y0`$, (called Type-A2), one more squark, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_R`$ (in Type-A1) or $`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$ (in Type-A2), decouples, and the Eq. (6) further reduces to a $`3\times 3`$ matrix. We have worked out the general diagonalization of $`4\times 4`$ matrix (6) for any $`(x,y)`$. The mass-eigenvalues of the eigenstates $`(\stackrel{~}{c}_1,\stackrel{~}{c}_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_1,\stackrel{~}{t}_2)`$ are,

$$\begin{array}{cc}M_{\stackrel{~}{c}1,2}^2\hfill & =\stackrel{~}{m}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{2}|\sqrt{\omega _+}\sqrt{\omega _{}}|,\hfill \\ M_{\stackrel{~}{t}1,2}^2\hfill & =\stackrel{~}{m}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{2}|\sqrt{\omega _+}+\sqrt{\omega _{}}|,\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where $`\omega _\pm =X_t^2+(A_x\pm A_y)^2`$. From (8), we can deduce the mass-spectrum of the stop-scharm sector as

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{t}1}<M_{\stackrel{~}{c}1}<M_{\stackrel{~}{c}2}<M_{\stackrel{~}{t}2}.$$
(9)
In Eq. (8), the stop $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ can be as light as about $`100300`$ GeV for the typical range of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_00.51`$ TeV. The $`4\times 4`$ rotation matrix of the diagonalization is given by,

$$\begin{array}{c}(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{c}_L\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{c}_R\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{t}_L\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{t}_R\hfill \end{array})=(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill c_1c_3& \hfill c_1s_3& \hfill s_1s_4& \hfill s_1c_4\\ \hfill c_2s_3& \hfill c_2c_3& \hfill s_2c_4& \hfill s_2s_4\\ \hfill s_1c_3& \hfill s_1s_3& \hfill c_1s_4& \hfill c_1c_4\\ \hfill s_2s_3& \hfill s_2c_3& \hfill c_2c_4& \hfill c_2s_4\end{array})\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{c}_1\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{c}_2\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{t}_1\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{t}_2\hfill \end{array}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
with

$$s_{1,2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[1\frac{X_t^2A_x^2\pm A_y^2}{\sqrt{\omega _+\omega _{}}}\right]^{1/2},s_4=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},$$
(11)
and $`s_3=0`$ (if $`xy=0`$), or, $`s_3=1/\sqrt{2}`$ (if $`xy0`$), where $`s_j^2+c_j^2=1`$.

2.2. Type-B Minimal SUSY FCNC Models with a Horizontal $`U(1)`$ Symmetry

The minimal Type-A SUSY FCNC schemes with a non-diagonal $`A_u`$-term, as discussed above, are truly economical as they uniquely result from imposing all the stringent theoretical and experimental bounds. Below, we further support such type of FCNC in the $`\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{c}`$ sector by providing theoretically compelling constructions based upon a minimal family symmetry. An attractive approach is to make use of the simplest horizontal $`U(1)_H`$ symmetry to generate realistic flavor structure of both quarks and squarks, via proper powers of a single suppression factor , and to provide a solution to the SUSY $`\mu `$-problem. For convenience, we define the suppression factor $`ϵ=S/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to have a similar size as the Wolfenstein-parameter $`\lambda `$ in the CKM matrix, i.e., $`ϵ\lambda 0.22`$. Here, $`S`$ is the vacuum expectation value of a singlet scalar $`S`$, responsible for spontaneous $`U(1)_H`$ breaking, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the scale at which the $`U(1)_H`$ breaking is mediated to light fermions. In general, the supermultiplets of three-family quarks/squarks may carry different $`U(1)_H`$ charges, as defined in Table 1.

Table 1. Quantum number assignments under the horizontal symmetry $`U(1)_H`$.

| $`Q_1`$ | $`Q_2`$ | $`Q_3`$ | $`\overline{u}_1`$ | $`\overline{u}_2`$ | $`\overline{u}_3`$ | $`\overline{d}_1`$ | $`\overline{d}_2`$ | $`\overline{d}_3`$ | $`H_u`$ | $`H_d`$ | $`S`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`h_1`$ | $`h_2`$ | $`h_3`$ | $`\alpha _1`$ | $`\alpha _2`$ | $`\alpha _3`$ | $`\beta _1`$ | $`\beta _2`$ | $`\beta _3`$ | $`\xi `$ | $`\xi ^{}`$ | $`1`$ |

It is then straightforward to deduce the following hierarchy structures in the quark mass matrices:

$$M_u^{ij}\frac{v_u}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda ^{\alpha _i+h_j+\xi },M_d^{ij}\frac{v_u}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}\beta }\lambda ^{\beta _i+h_j+\xi ^{}}.$$
(12)
Similarly, in the CKM matrix,

$$(V_{us},V_{cb},V_{ub})(\lambda ^{h_1h_2},\lambda ^{h_2h_3},\lambda ^{h_1h_3}).$$
(13)
Unlike Ref. , the key ingredient of our model-buildings is to impose a new condition,

$$\alpha _2=\alpha _3,$$
(14)
which ensures the mixings between $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ in the squark mass matrix to be naturally of $`O(1)`$. From the condition (14) and the current data of quark-masses and CKM angles (which can all be counted in powers of $`\lambda `$), we find an almost unique solution for all quark/squark quantum numbers (cf., Table 2), which is based upon a single $`U(1)_H`$ symmetry and will be called the minimal Type-B scheme hereafter. In Table 2, we consider $`\mathrm{tan}\beta O(1)`$ for the down-type quark mass-matrix $`M_d`$ \[cf. Eq. (12)\]. The extension to a larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ only affects the quantum numbers of $`\overline{d}_j`$’s in a trivial way as it just contributes an overall factor $`1/\mathrm{tan}\beta \lambda ^k`$ (with the integer $`k0.66\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) to $`M_d`$ in Eq. (12) and thus simply adds $`k`$ to each quantum number of $`\overline{d}_j`$ listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Quantum number assignments are derived for the minimal Type-B model with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta O(1)`$.

| $`Q_1`$ | $`Q_2`$ | $`Q_3`$ | $`\overline{u}_1`$ | $`\overline{u}_2`$ | $`\overline{u}_3`$ | $`\overline{d}_1`$ | $`\overline{d}_2`$ | $`\overline{d}_3`$ | $`H_u`$ | $`H_d`$ | $`S`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`4`$ | $`3`$ | $`0`$ | $`3\xi `$ | $`\xi `$ | $`\xi `$ | $`4\xi ^{}`$ | $`3\xi ^{}`$ | $`3\xi ^{}`$ | $`\xi `$ | $`\xi ^{}`$ | $`1`$ |

There are some slight variations of this minimal Type-B model, by allowing the quantum numbers of $`Q_j`$’s to have $`\xi (\xi ^{})`$-dependence, but they all predict the same patterns for the quark masses and mixings. By this construction, we have attempted to simultaneously solve the SUSY $`\mu `$-problem from the same $`U(1)_H`$. A dynamical $`\mu `$-term can originate from $`(\kappa /\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n1})S^nH_uH_d`$, with $`n=\xi +\xi ^{}`$, such that $`\mu =\kappa \lambda ^{n1}S`$ is generated at a scale $`SM_{\mathrm{Planck}}`$. Hence, a weak-scale value of $`\mu `$ can be obtained by properly choosing $`n`$ for a given $`S`$. If $`U(1)_H`$ is not related to the SUSY $`\mu `$-problem, the minimal Type-B model becomes truly unique, corresponding to a special case of $`\xi =\xi ^{}=0`$ in Table 2. With Table 2, we can readily derive the structures of quark/squark mass-matrices. For instance, the up-quark mass-matrix takes the form of

$$M_u\frac{v_u}{\sqrt{2}}(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^7& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^3& \lambda ^3\\ \lambda ^3& 1& 1\end{array}),$$
(15)
for any $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$, while the squark mass-matrices $`M_{LL}^2`$ and $`M_{RR}^2`$ in Eq. (2) are deduced as,

$$\begin{array}{c}M_{LL}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda & \lambda ^4\\ \lambda & 1& \lambda ^3\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^3& 1\end{array}\right),M_{RR}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda ^3& \lambda ^3\\ \lambda ^3& 1& 1\\ \lambda ^3& 1& 1\end{array}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
Eqs. (15) and (16) show a partial quark-squark “alignment” that effectively suppresses the FCNCs between 1st and 2nd(3rd) families, while at the same time provides $`O(1)`$ mixings in the $`\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{c}`$ sector of $`M_{RR}^2`$. Furthermore, because squarks carries the same $`U(1)_H`$-charge as quarks, the $`\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{c}`$ mixings originating from a non-diagonal $`A_u`$ term is predicted to share the same hierarchy structure as that in $`M_u`$ \[cf. Eq. (15)\]. This, however, does not imply an exact “proportionality” between $`A_u`$ and $`M_u`$ because the power-counting of $`\lambda `$ allows the coefficients in the corresponding entries of $`A_u`$ and $`M_u`$ to differ by ratios of $`O(1)`$. Ignoring the small $`O(\lambda ^3)1\%`$ terms in $`M_u`$, we can diagonalize $`M_u`$ by a $`2\times 2`$ rotation of the singlet quarks $`(\overline{c},\overline{t})`$. Under the super-CKM basis, the off-diagonal block $`M_{LR}^2`$ of the Eq. (2) becomes

$$M_{LR}^2=A_u^{}v\mathrm{sin}\beta /\sqrt{2}M_u^{\mathrm{diag}}\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta ,$$
(17)
where $`A_u^{}=K_{UL}A_uK_{UR}^{}=A_uK_{UR}^{}+O(\lambda ^3)`$ and the singlet-quark rotation matrix $`K_{UR}`$ contains a nontrivial sub-matrix involving only the second and the third family squarks. After neglecting the tiny $`O(\lambda ^3)`$ terms, we can parametrize the minimal $`A_u^{}`$ term of the Type-B model as

$$\begin{array}{c}A_u^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& y& 1\end{array}\right)A,\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
where the size of the mixing parameter $`y`$ is naturally of $`O(1)`$. Thus, under this construction, the squarks $`(\stackrel{~}{u}_L,\stackrel{~}{u}_R,\stackrel{~}{c}_L)`$ decouple and the Eq. (2) greatly reduces to a $`3\times 3`$ matrix, which takes the form, under the basis $`(\stackrel{~}{c}_R,\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_{ct}^2[\mathrm{B}]=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{m}_0^2& A_y& x\stackrel{~}{m}_0^2\\ A_y& \stackrel{~}{m}_0^2& X_t\\ x\stackrel{~}{m}_0^2& X_t& \stackrel{~}{m}_0^2\end{array}\right).$$
(19)
In the above equation, $`A_y=yAv\mathrm{sin}\beta /\sqrt{2}`$, and the parameter $`x=O(1)`$ characterizes the mixing of $`\stackrel{~}{c}_R\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$ in the mass matrix $`M_{RR}^2`$ \[cf., Eq. (16)\]. For convenience, we define the typical case with $`y=0`$ as the Type-B1 scheme, and that with $`x=0`$ as the Type-B2 scheme. We note that the Type-B2 model is identical to the Type-A2 model as they have the same form of the non-diagonal $`A_u`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$ decouples. Also, Type-B2 mass matrix with $`y=0`$ in Eq. (19) takes the same structure as that of Type-A1 except that Eq. (19) involves $`\stackrel{~}{c}_R`$ (not $`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$) and its $`x`$ originates from $`M_{RR}^2`$ (not $`A_u`$). Without losing generality, we will study the physical applications of the typical Type-A1 and -A2 (-B2) models in the following sections.

3. SUSY Radiative Corrections and Higgs Signatures at Colliders

3.1. SUSY Induced $`H^\pm bc`$ Vertex and $`H^\pm `$ Production at Hadron Colliders

Different from the TopColor models and the Type-III of two-Higgs-doublet models discussed in Ref. , the MSSM Higgs sector has no FCNC at the tree level and the same is true for flavor-changing mixings in the charged sector (except the usual CKM mechanism). Thus, the new flavor-changing effects in the neutral and charged sectors of the MSSM have to be generated radiatively. From Eq. (10) and its resulted Feynman rules, we can compute the dominant SUSY-QCD radiative corrections to the $`H^\pm bc`$ coupling. It contains vertex corrections \[scharm(stop)-sbottom-gluino loop\] and self-energy corrections \[scharm(stop)-gluino loop\], and can be summarized as,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{H^+b\overline{c}}& =i\overline{u}_c(k_2)\left(F_LP_L+F_RP_R\right)u_b(k_1),\hfill \\ \hfill F_{L,R}& =F_{L,R}^0+F_{L,R}^V+F_{L,R}^S,\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
where $`P_{L,R}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$ and the tree-level results are

$$(F_L^0,F_R^0)=\frac{gV_{cb}}{\sqrt{2}m_w}(m_c\mathrm{cot}\beta ,m_b\mathrm{tan}\beta ),$$
(21)
with $`V_{cb}`$ being the CKM mixing matrix element involving $`c`$ and $`b`$ quarks. The one-loop vertex corrections in the Type-A1 model give,

$`F_L^V`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`F_R^V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}\kappa _{jk}^RC_0(m_H^2,0,0;m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_k}),`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{u}_k(\stackrel{~}{c}_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_1,\stackrel{~}{t}_2)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_j(\stackrel{~}{b}_1,\stackrel{~}{b}_2)`$, and $`C_0`$ is the 3-point $`C`$-function of Passarino-Veltman . $`\kappa _{jk}^R`$ is the product of the relevant $`H^\pm `$-$`\stackrel{~}{b}_j`$-$`\stackrel{~}{u}_k`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_j`$-$`\stackrel{~}{g}`$-$`b`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{u}_k`$-$`\stackrel{~}{g}`$-$`c`$ couplings. The $`\stackrel{~}{b}_L\stackrel{~}{b}_R`$ mixings are also included, which can be sizable for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Furthermore, the Type-A1 self-energy corrections yield

$`F_L^S`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`F_R^S`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{F}_R^0{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _ss_1}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{m_t}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,2}{}}()^{j+1}B_0(0;m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_j}),`$
where $`B_0`$ is the 2-point Passarino-Veltman function  and $`s_1`$ is given in Eq. (10) for $`y=0`$, and tree-level $`H^\pm tb`$ couplings $`(\widehat{F}_L^0,\widehat{F}_R^0)=(gV_{tb}/\sqrt{2}m_w)(m_t\mathrm{cot}\beta ,m_b\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$. In Eqs. (LABEL:eq:FVER)-(LABEL:eq:FSEL), the tiny sub-leading terms suppressed by the powers of $`m_c/m_{t,\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ have been ignored.

The form factors $`F_L^{V,S}`$ and $`F_R^{V,S}`$ for the Type-A2 and Type-B2 models can be easily obtained from Eqs. (LABEL:eq:FVER)-(LABEL:eq:FSEL) by the exchanges of $`LR`$ and $`xy`$. We note that $`F_L(F_R)`$ vanishes in Type-A1 (Type-A2 $`\&`$ -B2) schemes because $`\stackrel{~}{c}_R`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$) decouples.

We find that the effective $`H^\pm bc`$ couplings $`F_{L,R}`$ are typically around $`0.030.1`$ for $`(x,y)0.50.9`$, $`(A,\stackrel{~}{m}_0)0.52`$ TeV, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1550`$. Therefore, the production of a charged Higgs boson via the $`b`$-$`c`$ quark fusion process can become important in a wide range of the parameter space. In Fig. 1(a), the production cross sections of $`H^\pm `$ via $`p\overline{p}/ppH^\pm X`$ at the Tevatron and LHC are shown for $`(\mu ,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},\stackrel{~}{m}_0)=(300,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}300},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}600})`$ GeV, $`(A,A_b)=1.5`$ TeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =(15,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}50})`$, and $`x=0.75`$ in the Type-A1 model. The dotted and dash curves are the SM production rates of $`csH^\pm `$ and $`cbH^\pm `$ (induced by $`V_{cb}0.04`$), respectively, after including the complete next-to-leading order (NLO) SM-QCD corrections . (The NLO SM-QCD corrections include the subprocesses with one single gluon in the initial state.) The solid curve is the full $`cbH^\pm `$ production rate as a function of the Higgs boson mass after including both the SM-QCD and new SUSY-QCD corrections. As indicated, the SUSY loop corrections can significantly dominate over the CKM-suppressed $`F_{L,R}^0`$ contributions by a factor of $`25`$. In Fig. 1(b) and (c), we show the $`K`$-factor, defined as the ratio of $`(F_L^2+F_R^2)`$ over $`(F_{L}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+F_{R}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2})`$, which characterizes the enhancement of the $`H^\pm `$ production rate by the SUSY loop contributions.

To study the detection of a $`H^\pm `$ scalar, we consider its decay modes in the following. For $`m_H190`$ GeV, the $`\tau \nu `$ channel dominates, and for $`m_H190`$ GeV, $`H^\pm `$ mostly decays into the $`tb`$ channel unless $`H^\pm `$ mass is above the threshold of $`W^\pm h^0`$, in which case the $`W^\pm h^0`$ channel (with $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ and $`h^0b\overline{b}`$) can become important as well . Fig. 1 suggests that the Tevatron may be sensitive to the $`H^\pm `$ signals for $`m_H`$ below $`300`$ GeV, with an integrated luminosity of $`220`$ fb-1 per detector, while the LHC can potentially probe the full mass-range of $`H^\pm `$ with an integrated luminosity of about $`100`$ fb-1. A detailed Monte Carlo simulation is needed to further quantify the discovery potential of the Tevatron and the LHC, which is beyond the scope of this Letter.

We have also examined the similar SUSY-induced enhancement $`K`$-factor for the $`H^\pm `$ production rate in the type-A2 and -B2 models and found that in the low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ($`510`$) region it can reach to about $`25`$ for $`y=0.50.9`$. But, as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ increases to above $`15`$, the enhancement factor decreases to less than $`1.3`$ for Higgs mass below 1 TeV.

3.2. SUSY Induced $`h^0tc`$ Vertex and Neutral Higgs Signal from Top Decay

It is known that the SM branching ratio of the flavor-changing top decay $`tch^0`$ is extremely small ($`10^{13}10^{14}`$ ), so that this channel becomes an excellent window for probing new physics . Our minimal SUSY FCNC models predict the branching ratio of the $`tch^0`$ decay to be substantially above the SM value so that this decay mode becomes observable at the LHC. (Note that this decay channel is always kinematically allowed in the MSSM.)

In our minimal FCNC schemes, the one-loop SUSY QCD induced $`tch^0`$ coupling can be written as

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t\overline{c}h}=i\overline{u}_c(k_2)\left(F_LP_L+F_RP_R\right)u_t(k_1),\hfill \\ F_{L,R}=F_{L,R}^V+F_{L,R}^S,\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
which contains the vertex corrections (from scharm-stop-gluino, stop-stop-gluino and scharm-scharm-gluino, triangle loops), and the self-energy corrections (from stop-gluino and scharm-gluino loops). The one-loop vertex corrections in Type-A1 are,

$`F_L^V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}\lambda _{jk}^Lm_t(C_0+C_{11})(m_h^2,m_t^2,0;m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_k}),`$
$`F_R^V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}\lambda _{jk}^Rm_{\stackrel{~}{g}}C_0(m_h^2,m_t^2,0;m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_j},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_k}),`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{u}_{j,k}(\stackrel{~}{c}_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_1,\stackrel{~}{t}_2)`$, and $`(C_0,C_{11})`$ are the 3-point $`C`$-function of Passarino-Veltman. $`\lambda _{jk}^{L,R}`$ is the product of the relevant $`h\stackrel{~}{u}_j\stackrel{~}{u}_k`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{u}_k\stackrel{~}{g}t(c)`$ couplings, derived from applying the squark-rotation (10). The Type-A1 self-energy corrections yield,

$`F_L^S`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`F_R^S`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}_0{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _ss_\theta }{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{m_t}}\left[B_0(0;m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2})B_0(0;m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1})\right],`$
where $`B_0`$ is the 2-point Passarino-Veltman function and $`s_\theta `$ is given in Eq. (10) with $`y=0`$. $`\stackrel{~}{F}_0`$ denotes the tree-level $`h^0t\overline{t}`$ coupling, and is given by $`\stackrel{~}{F}^0=(m_t/v)(\mathrm{cos}\alpha /\mathrm{sin}\beta )`$. Again, in Eqs. (LABEL:eq:FVERch)-(LABEL:eq:FSELch), we have ignored the tiny sub-leading terms suppressed by the powers of $`m_c/m_{t,\stackrel{~}{g}}`$.

The form factors $`F_{L,R}^{V,S}`$ in the Type-A2 model can be obtained from (LABEL:eq:FVERch)-(LABEL:eq:FSELch) by the exchanges of $`LR`$ and $`xy`$ everywhere.

For the numerical study, we assume that the only dominant decay mode of the top quark is its SM decay mode, $`tbW`$. Thus, the decay branching ratio of $`tch^0`$ is given by, Br$`[tch^0]\mathrm{\Gamma }[tch^0]/\mathrm{\Gamma }[tbW]`$, with the partial decay width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(tch)=\frac{m_t}{16\pi }\left[1\frac{m_h^2}{m_t^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(F_L^2+F_R^2\right),$$
(27)
where the form factors $`(F_L,F_R)`$ are defined in Eq. (24). As summarized by Table 3, in our minimal SUSY-FCNC schemes, the decay branching ratio $`\mathrm{Br}[tch^0]`$ can be as large as $`10^310^5`$ over a large part of the SUSY parameter space where the mass of the lightest Higgs boson $`h^0`$ is around $`110130`$ GeV. We see that these decay branching ratios are very sensitive to the mixing parameter $`x`$ when it varies from 0.5 to 0.9. One reason is that the branching ratio (or decay width) contains, besides other mass-diagonalization effects, a sensitive overall power factor $`x^2`$ which comes from the stop-scharm mixing induced flavor-changing coupling in the squark-squark-gluino triangle loop and squark-gluino self-energy loop. Another reason is that unlike the usual analyses with mass-insertion approximation, we have performed exact squark mass diagonalization \[cf. Eqs. (8)-(11)\], so that stops and/or scharms can have significant mass-splittings. For instance, Eq. (8) shows that the mass-splitting between two top-squarks is not just due to the usual left-right mixing from $`X_t`$, but also arises from the non-diagonal $`A`$-term, $`xA`$ (and $`yA`$). The latter further enhances the mass-splittings and results in a light $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ of mass $`300100`$ GeV for $`x=0.50.9`$, and the heavier $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$ always has mass above the input $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0`$ (set as 600 GeV in Table 3). The radiative vertex corrections to $`tch^0`$ coupling are thus dominated by the diagram with $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{g}`$ triangle loop as we have explicitly verified from the 3-point Passarino-Veltman $`C`$-functions in Eq. (LABEL:eq:FVERch). This second reason further increases the sensitivity of our decay branching ratios to the mixing parameter $`x`$. From Table 3, we also see that for moderate mixings with $`x0.5`$, the branching ratios are generally bounded to around the order of $`10^5`$, consistent with other studies in the literature . The similar conclusion also holds for our Type-A2 and -B2 models.

Since the LHC with an integrated luminosity of $`100`$ fb-1 can produce about $`10^8`$ $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ pairs , it can have a great sensitivity to discover this decay channel and test the model predictions, by demanding one top decaying into the usual $`bW^\pm `$ mode and another to the FCNC $`ch^0`$ mode. As shown in a recent model-independent Monte Carlo analysis , the LHC ($`100`$ fb-1) can already measure the Br$`[tch^0]`$ down to the level of $`4.5\times 10^5`$ at the $`95\%`$ C.L. The future Linear Collider, with a high luminosity, is also expected to have a good sensitivity to detect this channel.

Table 3. Br$`[tch^0]\times 10^3`$ is shown for a sample set of Type-A1 inputs with $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_0,\mu ,A)=(0.6,0.3,1.5)`$ TeV and Higgs mass $`M_{A^0}=0.6`$ TeV. The three numbers in each entry correspond to $`x=(0.5,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.75},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.9})`$, respectively.

| $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ | $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ | 20 | 50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`100`$ GeV | (0.011, 0.10, 0.81) | (0.015, 0.19, 4.6) | (0.016, 0.21, 7.0) |
| $`500`$ GeV | (0.011, 0.09, 0.41) | (0.015, 0.13, 1.0) | (0.016, 0.14, 1.2) |

4. Conclusions

The three-family squark mass-matrix originating from the soft SUSY breaking sector contains a rich flavor-mixing structure. In this work, we have constructed the minimal FCNC schemes for the squark mass-terms and the scalar trilinear interactions which are consistent with the existing experimental and theoretical bounds. We find that the $`O(1)`$ large mixings among the top- and charm-squarks are allowed. We demonstrate that this feature can be naturally realized in a class of new models with a horizontal $`U(1)`$ symmetry which also generate realistic quark-mass pattern and solve the SUSY $`\mu `$-problem. Finally, we systematically analyze the dominant supersymmetric radiative corrections to the $`bcH^\pm `$ and $`tch^0`$ couplings in our minimal schemes, without using the mass-insertion approximation. We show that these couplings can be significant to provide new discovery signatures of the charged and neutral Higgs bosons at the Fermilab Tevatron and the CERN LHC.

Acknowledgments
We thank G. L. Kane, D. A. Dicus, T. Han and Y. Nir for valuable discussions and reading the manuscript. This work was supported by U.S. DOE and NSF.


format: text

text:
# 1 Typical solution to Eqs.() (with 𝜅=10⁻⁸)

1. Introduction.– The recent interest in the AdS/CFT correspondence (see  for a review), and in the brane world scenario  has attracted attention to gravity theories in D=5 spacetime dimensions. In this connection solutions of gauged supergravities have been actively studied. As such theories generically contain the non-Abelian gauge fields, considering solutions for such fields coupled to gravity seems to be important. At the same time, most studies so far have been restricted exclusively to the Abelian sector. Practically all what is known about gravitating non-Abelian solutions in D=5 are the BPS configurations described in . In D=4 on the other hand, gravitating Yang-Mills (YM) fields have been analyzed in some detail (see  for a review), partially with the numerical methods.

The aim of this letter is to study more systematically gravity-coupled YM fields in D=5 by applying the methods previously used in D=4. Instead of specializing to any particular supergravity model, we shall consider the pure Einstein-YM (EYM) theory. Although this theory is probably non-supersymmetric in itself, it enters all gauged supergravities as the basic building block, and hence one can expect some features of its solutions to be generic. In principle, one can study this theory also in higher dimensions, but we shall work only in D=5.

As is well known, the pure YM theory in D=5 Minkowski space admits topologically stable, particle-like and vortex-type solutions obtained by uplifting the D=4 YM instantons and D=3 YM-Higgs monopoles. It is then natural to wonder what happens to these objects when they are coupled to gravity. This issue seems to be interesting in itself, and it has not been addressed before. Below we shall study this problem and find that the particles become completely destroyed by gravity, as a result of their scaling behavior, while the vortices admit very non-trivial gravitating generalizations. These gravitating vortices comprise an infinite family including the fundamental solution and its excitations. All solutions exist for a finite range of values of the gravitational coupling constant, and in the strong gravity limit they become gravitationally closed.

It seems plausible that such solutions could be further generalized to include scalars and a cosmological term. In this case they would describe stable vortex excitations over the AdS5 background. Such topological defects might be interesting in view of the AdS/CFT correspondence as providing the dual gravity description for some processes on the gauge theory side, or possibly in the context of the brane world scenario.

2. The model.– The pure Einstein-YM theory for the gauge group SU(2) is defined by the action

$$S=\left(\frac{1}{16\pi G}R\frac{1}{4g^2}F_{MN}^aF^{aMN}\right)\sqrt{𝐠}d^5x.$$
(1)
Here $`F_{MN}^a=_MA_N^a_NA_M^a+\epsilon _{abc}A_M^bA_N^c`$ $`(a=1,2,3)`$, and $`[G^{1/3}]=[g^2]=[\mathrm{length}]`$. Let us split the coordinates as $`x^M=(x^0,x^\mu )`$, where $`x^\mu =(x^i,x^4)`$. In the flat spacetime limit, $`G0`$, the YM theory is not conformally invariant, the length scale being $`g^2`$, and this allows for soliton solutions. Specifically, for static, purely magnetic fields with $`A_M^a=(0,A_\mu ^a(x^\nu ))`$ the energy $`E=\frac{1}{4g^2}(F_{\mu \nu }^a)^2d^4x`$ coincides with the action of the D=4 Euclidean YM theory. It follows then that there are regular, topologically stable solutions in D=5 with the energy $`E=8\pi ^2|n|/g^2`$, where the topological winding number $`n\pi _3`$(SU(2)). These solutions describe neutral, particle-like objects which we shall call “YM instanton particles”. If $`/x^4`$ is a symmetry, one can choose $`A_M^a=(0,A_i^a(x^k),H^a(x^k))`$, and the energy per unit $`x^4`$, $`E=\frac{1}{2g^2}((_iH^a+\epsilon _{abc}A_i^bH^c)^2+\frac{1}{2}(F_{ik}^a)^2)d^3x`$, coincides with the energy of the D=3 YM-Higgs fields. Since $`H^aH^a`$ is asymptotically constant , there are topological vortex-type solutions with the energy per unit length $`E=4\pi |n|/g^2`$, where $`n\pi _2(S^2)`$. These we shall call “YM vortices”. Let us now set $`G0`$.

3. Gravitating YM particles.– We parameterize the SO(4)-invariant line element in the one-particle sector as

$$ds^2=\sigma ^2Ndt^2\frac{dr^2}{N}r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2,$$
(2)
with $`N1\kappa m/r^2`$, the length scale being $`g^2`$. The gauge field is given by $`A^a=(1+w)\theta ^a`$. Here $`w`$, $`\sigma `$, $`m`$ are functions of $`r`$, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2=\theta ^a\theta ^a`$ is the line element of the unit sphere $`S^3`$, and $`\theta ^a`$ are the invariant forms on $`S^3`$, such that $`d\theta ^a+\epsilon _{abc}\theta ^b\theta ^c=0`$. The gravitational coupling constant is $`\kappa =8\pi G/g^6`$. The ADM mass, $`M=m(\mathrm{})`$, determines the dimensionful energy $`E_{\mathrm{ADM}}=(3\pi ^2/g^2)M`$. The independent field equations read

$`r^2Nw^{\prime \prime }+rw^{}+\kappa (m(w^21)^2){\displaystyle \frac{w^{}}{r}}=2(w^21)w,`$
$`rm^{}=r^2Nw^2+(w^21)^2,`$ (3)
while the equation for $`\sigma `$ decouples and can be integrated giving $`\sigma (r)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\kappa _r^{\mathrm{}}\frac{w^2}{r}𝑑r\right)`$. It follows that $`r(m\sigma )^{}=(r^2w^2+(w^21)^2)\sigma `$, which can be integrated with the boundary conditions $`m(0)=0`$ to give

$$M[w,\kappa ]=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dr}{r}(r^2w^2+(w^21)^2)\mathrm{exp}\left(\kappa _r^{\mathrm{}}\frac{w^2}{r}𝑑r\right).$$
(4)
This is the ADM mass for configurations subject to the $`(00)`$ and $`(rr)`$ Einstein equations, and for such fields it is proportional to the action density. It follows that on-shell fields are stationary points of $`M[w,\kappa ]`$. For $`\kappa =0`$ the integrand in (4) can be represented as a sum of a total derivative and a perfect square. The latter vanishes if the self-duality equation holds, $`rw^{}=\pm (w^21)`$, whose solutions are $`w=\frac{br^21}{br^2+1}`$, where $`b`$ is a scale parameter. These describe the regular “instanton particles” with the energy $`E_{\mathrm{ADM}}=8\pi ^2/g^2`$.

It turns out that for $`\kappa 0`$ Eqs.(3) do not admit globally regular solutions with finite ADM mass. Indeed, for such solutions $`\sigma (r)0`$, such that the exponent in (4) never vanishes, and therefore (4) can only be finite if $`w(r)\pm 1`$ for $`r0,\mathrm{}`$. It follows then that $`M[w(\lambda r),\kappa ]=M[w(r),\lambda ^2\kappa ]`$, where $`\lambda `$ is a constant scaling parameter. Since $`M`$ should be stationary with respect to rescalings, one should have $`0=\frac{d}{d\lambda }M[w(r),\lambda ^2\kappa ]|_{\lambda =1}`$, but the latter is manifestly negative for $`\kappa 0`$.

The YM particles therefore do not generalize to curved space – as a consequence of their scaling behavior. Specifically, since the size of the particles can be arbitrary, there is the corresponding scaling zero mode of the energy functional. This does not allow one to apply the inverse function theorem  to construct the gravitating generalizations even for arbitrarily small $`\kappa `$. Qualitatively, the YM particles resemble dust, since their rescaling changes the gravitational binding (the exponential factor in (4)), without affecting the energy of the gauge field (the rest of the integrand in (4)). As a result, the attraction and repulsion are not balanced and the equilibrium is impossible – the gravitating system wants to shrink but there is no pressure to stop the contraction. Notice that these arguments apply only in D=5. In D=4 the YM instantons can be coupled to gravity without problems – since their energy-momentum tensor then vanishes, they fulfill the coupled system of the Euclidean EYM equations for any value of $`G`$.

One can numerically integrate Eqs.(3) with the regular boundary conditions at the origin, $`w=12br^2+O(r^4)`$, $`m=O(r^3)`$, in order to see what actually happens to the static YM particle solution if $`\kappa 0`$. It turns out that as $`r`$ increases, $`w`$ first follows very closely (for small $`\kappa `$) the flat space configuration, but then it fails to reach the value $`1`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ and starts replicating the same pattern infinitely many times. As a result there emerges the quasi-periodic structure shown in Fig.1. This can be explained: integrating the Yang-Mills equation in (3) gives

$$w^2(w^21)^2=_{\mathrm{}}^\tau (\mathrm{ln}(\sigma ^2N))^{}w^2𝑑\tau ,$$
(5)
with $`{}_{}{}^{}\frac{d}{d\tau }r\sqrt{N}\frac{d}{dr}`$. This describes a particle moving with friction in the inverted double-well potential $`U=(w^21)^2`$. At $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$ the particle starts at the local maximum of the potential at $`w=1`$, but then it looses energy due to the dissipation and cannot reach the second maximum at $`w=1`$. Hence it bounces back. For large $`\tau `$ the dissipative term tends to zero, and the particle ends up oscillating in the potential well with a constant energy. After each oscillation the mass function $`m`$ increases in a step-like fashion, and for large $`r`$ one has $`m\tau \mathrm{ln}r`$. As a result, there emerges an infinite sequence of static spherical shells of the YM energy in the D=5 spacetime.

4. Gravitating YM vortices.– We parameterize the SO(3)-invariant metric in the one-vortex sector as

$$ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2\nu }dt^2\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }dr^2\mathrm{e}^{2\mu }d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\mathrm{e}^{2\zeta }(dx^4)^2,$$
(6)
with $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2=d\vartheta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta d\phi ^2`$. The SO(3)-invariant gauge field is given by

$$A^a=(w1)\epsilon _{abc}n^bdn^c+Hn^adx^4,$$
(7)
where $`n^a=(\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )`$. Here $`\nu `$, $`\lambda `$, $`\mu `$, $`\zeta `$, $`w`$, and $`H`$ are functions of $`r`$. With $`s=\mathrm{e}^{\nu +\zeta +2\mu \lambda }`$ the field equations read

$`s(s\mathrm{e}^{2\mu }w^{})^{}\mathrm{e}^{2\nu +2\zeta }(w^21)w=\mathrm{e}^{2\nu +2\mu }H^2w,`$ (8)
$`s(s\mathrm{e}^{2\zeta }H^{})^{}=2\mathrm{e}^{2\nu +2\mu }w^2H,`$ (9)
$`s(s\nu ^{})^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{3}}(A+2B+2C+D),`$ (10)
$`s(s\zeta ^{})^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{3}}(2A+2B4C+D),`$ (11)
$`s(s\mu ^{})^{}\mathrm{e}^{2\nu +2\zeta +2\mu }={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{3}}(ABC2D),`$ (12)
$`s^2(\mu ^2+2\nu ^{}\mu ^{}+2\zeta ^{}\mu ^{}+\zeta ^{}\nu ^{})\mathrm{e}^{2\nu +2\zeta +2\mu }`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}(A+2B2CD).`$ (13)
Here $`A=\mathrm{e}^{2\zeta }s^2H^2`$, $`B=\mathrm{e}^{2\mu }s^2w^2`$, $`C=\mathrm{e}^{2\nu +2\mu }w^2H^2`$, $`D=\mathrm{e}^{2\nu +2\zeta }(w^21)^2`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\frac{d}{dr}`$. In this system the last equation is the initial value “Gauss” constraint generating the residual gauge symmetry $`r\stackrel{~}{r}(r)`$. This symmetry can be used to impose a gauge condition on the amplitudes. The equations are also invariant with respect to the rescalings of the $`t`$ and $`x^4`$ coordinates, $`\nu \nu +\nu _0`$, $`\zeta \zeta +\zeta _0,H\mathrm{e}^{\zeta _0}H`$, with constant $`\nu _0`$ and $`\zeta _0`$.

In addition, the equations are invariant with respect to the dilatations, $`\mu \mu +ϵ`$, $`\lambda \lambda +ϵ`$, $`\zeta \zeta +ϵ`$, $`\kappa \mathrm{e}^{2ϵ}\kappa `$, with constant $`ϵ`$. The associated conserved Noether charge is

$$𝒬=s(\nu ^{}+\zeta ^{}+\kappa HH^{}\mathrm{e}^{2\zeta }).$$
(14)
The origin of this symmetry can be traced to the fact that effectively the system can be viewed as the D=4 EYM-Higgs theory coupled to a dilaton. In general, if nothing depends on $`x^4`$, one can parameterize the 5-fields as $`𝐠_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=\mathrm{e}^\zeta \gamma _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu \mathrm{e}^{2\zeta }(dx^4)^2`$ and $`A_M^adx^M=A_\mu ^adx^\mu +H^adx^4`$. The action (1) then reduces to $`S=\frac{1}{g^2}𝑑x^4d^4x\sqrt{\gamma }_4`$ with

$$_4=\frac{1}{2\kappa g^4}+\frac{3}{\kappa g^4}_\mu \zeta ^\mu \zeta \frac{1}{4}\mathrm{e}^\zeta F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{2\zeta }𝒟_\mu H^a𝒟^\mu H^a.$$
(15)
Here $``$ is the Ricci scalar for $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$, the indices are lifted by $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$, also $`F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+\epsilon _{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c`$ and $`𝒟_\mu H^a=_\mu H^a+\epsilon _{abc}A_\mu ^bH^c`$. This determines the theory of coupled EYM-Higgs-dilaton fields in D=4. The amplitude $`\zeta `$ therefore effectively plays the role of the dilaton, which explains the dilatational symmetry. The vortex solutions under consideration thus can be viewed as D=4 gravitating YM-Higgs monopoles coupled to the dilaton in a special way (the systems considered so far in the literature do not have the direct coupling between the dilaton and Higgs fields .)

Some simplest solutions of the system (8)–(13) can be found. The vacuum Schwarzschild solution is obtained for $`w=\pm 1`$, $`H=0`$, $`\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }=1\frac{4\kappa M}{3r}`$, and either $`\nu =\lambda `$, $`\zeta =0`$ or $`\zeta =\lambda `$, $`\nu =0`$. The extreme charged Abelian black string solution is described by $`w=0`$, $`H=H_0`$, $`\mathrm{e}^{2\nu }=\mathrm{e}^{2\zeta }=\mathrm{e}^\lambda =1r_H/r`$, with $`r_H=\sqrt{2\kappa /3}`$.

We are interested in globally regular solutions with finite mass per unit $`x^4`$. This implies that $`\nu =\lambda =\zeta =0`$ at $`r=\mathrm{}`$, and if $`\mathrm{e}^\mu =r`$ then $`\nu =\frac{2\kappa }{3r}M+O(r^2)`$ for large $`r`$, while $`\lambda =\frac{\kappa }{3r}M_{\mathrm{ADM}}+O(r^2)`$. Here $`M`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{ADM}}`$, respectively, are the Newtonian and the ADM masses, the dimensionful energy being $`E=(4\pi /g^2)M`$. Choosing $`\mathrm{e}^\mu =r`$, dividing Eq.(10) by $`(\kappa s)`$ and integrating gives

$$M=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\mathrm{e}^\nu \left(\frac{r^2}{2}\mathrm{e}^{\zeta \lambda }H^2+\mathrm{e}^\lambda w^2+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \zeta }w^2H^2+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda +\zeta }\frac{(w^21)^2}{2r^2}\right).$$
(16)
In flat space, with $`\nu =\lambda =\zeta =0`$, the integrand here can be rearranged as the sum of a total derivative and two perfect squares. The latter vanish if the Bogomol’nyi equations hold, $`r^2H^{}+w^21=0`$ and $`w^{}+wH=0`$. The BPS solution, $`H=\mathrm{coth}r1/r`$ and $`w=r/\mathrm{sinh}r`$, describes the flat space vortex with $`M=M_{\mathrm{ADM}}=1`$.

The Noether charge $`𝒬`$ vanishes for globally regular solutions. As a result, using (14) with $`𝒬=0`$ allows us to exclude $`\nu `$ from the equations. Next, introducing $`h\mathrm{e}^\zeta H`$ the amplitude $`\zeta `$ can also be eliminated. Choosing the radial gauge where $`\lambda =0`$ and defining $`R\mathrm{e}^\mu `$, the independent variables are $`w`$, $`h`$, $`Z\zeta ^{}`$, and $`R`$. If these are determined, the amplitudes $`\nu `$ and $`\zeta `$ are given by $`\zeta =Z𝑑r`$, and $`\nu =\zeta +\kappa (Zh^2+hh^{})𝑑r`$. The field equations (8)–(12) can be reformulated as a seven-dimensional autonomous system

$$\frac{d}{dr}y_k=F_k(y_s,\kappa ),$$
(17)
with $`y_k=\{w,w^{},h,h^{},Z,R,R^{}\}`$, where the functions $`F_k(y_s,\kappa )`$ can be read-off from (8)–(12). In addition, the constraint (13) will restrict the initial values of the $`y_k`$’s. Eqs.(17) possess the dilatational symmetry

$$rϵr,ww,hh/ϵ,ZZ/ϵ,RϵR,\kappa ϵ^2\kappa ,$$
(18)
which also changes the mass as $`MM/ϵ`$. The following fixed points of the equations will be important in our analysis:

I. The origin, $`(w,h,Z,R)=(1,0,0,0)`$. Here the constraint “stable manifold” of solutions that are regular for $`r0`$ can be characterized by the Taylor expansions

$`w`$ $`=`$ $`1br^2+O(r^2),h=ar+O(r^3),`$
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`O(r^2),R=r+O(r^3).`$ (19)
II. Infinity, $`(w,h,Z,R)=(0,v,0,\mathrm{})`$, where the (unconstrained) stable manifold can be described by

$`w=Ar^{Cv}\mathrm{e}^{vr}+o(\mathrm{e}^r),Z=\kappa Qr^2+O(r^3\mathrm{ln}r),`$
$`h=v(1Cr^1)+O(r^2\mathrm{ln}r),`$ (20)
$`R=rm\mathrm{ln}r+m^2r^1\mathrm{ln}rr_{\mathrm{}}+\gamma r^1+O(r^2\mathrm{ln}r).`$
Here $`m\kappa (Cv^2+(2+\kappa v^2)Q)`$ determines the ADM mass, $`M_{\mathrm{ADM}}=\frac{3}{\kappa }m`$, while $`M=\frac{1}{2}M_{\mathrm{ADM}}\frac{3}{2}Q`$. In (S0.Ex3),(S0.Ex4) $`a`$, $`b`$, $`A`$, $`v`$, $`C`$, $`Q`$, $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\gamma `$ are eight free parameters, but due to the scaling symmetry (18) only seven are independent, and we shall set $`v=1`$.

III. “Warped” $`AdS_3\times S^2`$. This fixed point is determined by the real root of the algebraic equation $`4q^3+7q^2+11q=1`$:

$$w^2=q,R^2=\kappa \frac{(11q1)(1q)}{(4q^213q+1)},h^2=\frac{(1q)}{R^2},Z^2=\frac{(4q^213q+1)}{(4q+1)R^2}.$$
(21)
Evaluating,

$$w=0.29,h=\frac{1.27}{\sqrt{\kappa }},Z=\pm \frac{0.31}{\sqrt{\kappa }},R=0.75\sqrt{\kappa }.$$
(22)
This is a new exact, essentially non-Abelian solution to the field equations. Its geometry is

$$ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2\alpha Zr}dt^2dr^2\mathrm{e}^{2Zr}(dx^4)^2R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(23)
with $`\alpha =1+\kappa h^2=2.62`$ (notice that for $`\alpha =1`$ this would be the metric on $`AdS_3\times S^2`$). The gauge field is given by (7) with $`H=\mathrm{e}^{Zr}h`$. Linearizing Eqs.(17) around this solution, one finds the 7 characteristic eigenvalues of the linearized system to be $`\{2.77,2.47,2.12,0.61\pm 1.24i,0.88,1.54\},`$ in units of $`1/\sqrt{\kappa }`$. The solution (21) is therefore a hyperbolic (saddle) fixed point with five stable and two unstable for $`r\mathrm{}`$ eigenmodes.

We now integrate the equations (17) for a given $`\kappa 0`$ in the interval $`r[0,\mathrm{})`$ using (S0.Ex3),(S0.Ex4) as the boundary conditions and adjusting the seven independent free parameters to match the seven $`y_k`$’s. This gives the gravitating vortex solutions. For small $`\kappa `$ they are only slightly deformed as compared to the flat space vortex. The essentially non-Abelian field is contained in the central core where $`w0`$, while in the far field zone $`w`$ vanishes and only the long range U(1) component of the gauge field survives. The metric amplitudes are $`Z0`$, $`Rr`$, $`R^{}1`$.

It turns out to be convenient to measure the coupling to gravity not by $`\kappa `$ but by $`\xi =a\kappa `$ where $`a`$ comes from (S0.Ex3). Solutions are specified by their asymptotic parameters in (S0.Ex3),(S0.Ex4), which lie on the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\xi )`$ in the eight-dimensional parameter space with coordinates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\kappa ,a,b,A,C,Q,r_{\mathrm{}},\gamma )`$. As $`\xi `$ increases and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\xi )`$ deviates from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)`$, the solutions deviate more and more from their flat space profiles: $`R^{}(r)`$ develops more and more pronounced minimum at some finite $`r`$ where $`Z(r)`$ considerably deviates from zero; see Fig.2. It is interesting that $`\kappa `$ not always increases with $`\xi `$, but only up to the maximal value $`\kappa _{\mathrm{max}}=3.22`$ and then starts decreasing; see Fig.4 where projections of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\xi )`$ on the $`C\kappa `$, $`CQ`$, $`CA`$, and $`C\gamma `$ planes are shown.

For strongly gravitating solutions, as $`\xi `$ continues to increase, the amplitudes $`w(r)`$, $`h(r)`$, $`Z(r)`$, $`R(r)`$ start developing oscillations around the constant values which are close to those given by Eq.(22). The number of oscillations grows as gravity gets stronger, while their amplitudes tend to zero. The proper length of the interval where oscillations take place increases, and solutions develop a long throat connecting the core of the vortex with the asymptotic region. In the strong gravity limit this throat gets infinitely long, and the vortex core becomes disconnected from the outside world. A similar phenomenon has been observed in D=4 .

In order to qualitatively understand such a behavior, each solution can be viewed as a trajectory interpolating in the phase space between the two fixed points (S0.Ex3) and (S0.Ex4). On its way, it gets attracted by the saddle point (21), due to the five stable for $`r\mathrm{}`$ eigenmodes around this point, it spends some “time” in its vicinity, but finally it gets repelled due to the two unstable eigenmodes. As gravity gets stronger with growing $`\xi `$, the trajectory approaches closer and closer the saddle point (21) oscillating longer and longer in its vicinity. Finally, the trajectory exactly hits the saddle point and splits into two parts. The first part starts at the origin (S0.Ex3) and after infinitely many oscillations arrives at the saddle point (21). The second part interpolates between the saddle point and infinity (S0.Ex4). As a result, the vortex solution splits in the limit into two independent solutions. The first, interior solution contains the regular core, but asymptotically it is not flat and approaches instead the geometry (23). The second, exterior solution interpolates between (23) and the asymptotically flat region.

One can directly construct the exterior limiting solution. This lives in the interval $`r(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$. Shifting $`r`$ to set $`r_{\mathrm{}}=0`$ leaves four free coefficients in (S0.Ex4), while the (constraint) set of solutions that approach (22) for $`r\mathrm{}`$ is determined by the two unstable modes around this fixed point. There are altogether six free parameters, and the matching conditions can be fulfilled if only $`\kappa `$ is treated as the seventh free parameter. The solution is found for $`\kappa =0.316`$; see Fig.3. This solution can be viewed as an extreme non-Abelian black string: in $`r=R`$ coordinates $`\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }`$ has a double zero at $`r_h=0.42`$, while $`\mathrm{e}^{2\nu }(rr_h)^{2.02}`$ and $`\mathrm{e}^{2\zeta }(rr_h)^{0.77}`$ for $`rr_h`$.

It is instructive to consider the behavior of the parameters of the solutions $`(\kappa ,a,b,A,C,Q,r_{\mathrm{}},\gamma )`$ with increasing $`\xi `$. One can shift $`rrr_{\mathrm{}}`$ to set $`r_{\mathrm{}}=0`$, which changes $`AA\mathrm{e}^r_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\gamma \gamma +mr_{\mathrm{}}`$ without affecting the other parameters. One can then plot all parameters against $`\xi `$, but it is more illustrative to pick up one parameter, $`C`$, say, and plot the remaining ones against it. The resulting curves (some of them are shown in Fig.4) exhibit the characteristic spiraling behavior in the strong gravity limit (large $`\xi `$). A similar oscillatory behavior of parameters in the critical limit is known for relativistic/boson stars .

Apart from the fundamental solutions, one finds also their excitations, for which $`w`$ oscillates around zero. These can be parameterized by the number of nodes $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ of $`w`$. These solutions do not have the flat space limit: for $`\kappa 0`$ their mass $`M1/\sqrt{\kappa }`$. This limit can be analyzed with the rescaling (18) with $`ϵ=1/\sqrt{\kappa }`$, which eliminates the explicit $`\kappa `$-dependence from the equations. The rescaled Higgs field then decouples in the limit, and this leads to solutions which resemble the D=4 Bartnik-McKinnon solutions  – with $`w`$ oscillating around zero and $`w(\mathrm{})=\pm 1`$.

Acknowledgment– I would like to thank Peter Breitenlohner, Peter Forgacs, and especially Dieter Maison for numerous clarifying discussions. This work was supported by the CNRS and partly by the DFG grant Wi 777/4-3.


text:
# OBLIQUE SURFACE WAVES ON A PAIR OF PLANAR PERIODIC SLOTTED WAVEGUIDES.

## I Introduction

The behavior of a slow wave filter made of a pair of planar periodic waveguides subjected to low frequency acoustic waves incident upon the aperture separating the waveguides has been investigated theoretically and experimentally for its potential use in acoustic filtering devices lahlou . Each waveguide has a comb structure consisting of a periodic array of blades perpendicular to a base plane (Figure 1).

Using a mathematical model borrowed from the study of electrical filters, a filter having the same geometric structure of a single comb waveguide has been analyzed previously . The dispersion relation, amplitude and phase as functions of frequency and wave number were derived and compared to experiment. In this work, we extend our previous theoretical results and consider the actual nature of the filter consisting of the two waveguides facing each other. We derive the dispersion relation and reflection (transmission) coefficients of surface waves propagating along any oblique wave number in the plane parallel to the comb structure base planes.

Our calculations are based on a weak-coupling approximation and in the limit of large distance separating the two structures. This means the separation is much larger than the inter-blade distance. The blades are supposed to have a vanishingly small thickness and we neglect possible reflections from the planar base affecting the propagating modes, by direct analogy with the electromagnetic case . This is equivalent to assuming a slot depth large with respect to the inverse lowest attenuation of the structure .

Our work is organized as follows: In section II, we discuss the geometry, propagating modes dispersion and amplitude relation for the surface waves. Section III covers the comparison with the experimental results and the conclusion is in Section IV.

## II DISPERSION RELATION, MODES AND AMPLITUDES

Periodic arrays of slotted waveguides stacked to form a rectangular  or prismatic  structure are good candidates for reducing environmental noise (0.1 to 2 kHz). Their properties have been analyzed theoretically and experimentally  such as their reflection scattering of sound waves harmful to the general population living near highways or other sources of damaging sources of low frequency noise. It is important to understand how these structures absorb, reflect, transmit or phase delay the incoming sound waves reaching them with arbitrary time dependent angles. For the rectangular structure, we have already undertaken such study from the experimental point of view as well as from the theoretical one. In this work, we set out to investigate a new type of structure introduced in detail in Ref. 1 theoretically and experimentally (Fig. 1).

We have studied the dispersion relation of acoustic waves impinging on the structure at an arbitrary fixed angle in the base plane, and measured the sound reflection and transmission with respect to the incident angle. Our prior theoretical investigation took account of a single comb structure only. Here we extend it and deal with a symmetrical weakly- coupled double comb structure  in the limit $`\frac{b}{d}1`$ where b is half the distance between the tip of the blades belonging to each of the waveguides and d is the inter-blade distance in any waveguide (Fig. 1).

Following our notation , we write for the acoustic fields in region A (free space) keeping the symmetric modes only:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_A(x,y,z)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_ne^{j\beta _nxj\tau z}\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha _ny)$$
(1)
where $`\beta _n`$ and $`\tau `$ are the propagation constants along x and z and $`\alpha _n`$ is the attenuation constant along y. The propagation constant $`\beta _0`$ defining the fundamental mode is determined from the propagation geometry (Fig. 1 of ). It is equal to $`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{tan}(\theta )}`$ where $`\theta `$ is the angle, the surface wave vector makes with the x-axis \[Fig. 1\]. The surface wave has a smaller velocity than in true free space by the ratio $`\sqrt{\beta ^2+\tau ^2}/k`$. In region B, the acoustic field in the n-th slot defined by the inequalities: $`\nu d\frac{d}{2}x\nu d+\frac{d}{2}`$ is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_B^\nu (x,y,z)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_m^\nu e^{j\tau z}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{m\pi x_\nu }{d})\mathrm{cos}[\gamma _m(y+b+h)]$$
(2)
The coefficients $`B_m^\nu `$ are determined with the help of Floquet’s  theorem $`B_m^\nu =B_me^{j\nu \beta _0d}`$ and the abscissae $`x_\nu `$ are equal to x-($`\nu `$-1/2)d. In order to find the dispersion equation of the surface waves and the coefficients $`A_m,B_m`$, we will proceed as we did in our previous work following the approach pioneered by Whitehead  and Hurd . It consists of writing the equations of continuity for the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A\text{and}\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ and their derivatives along the vertical y axis on the boundaries $`y=\pm b`$. These equations are considered as originating from Cauchy’s theorem of residues for a meromorphic function $`f(w)`$ taken along some contour and the contribution of each pole is identified with the contribution of some corresponding mode. The contour and $`f(w)`$ should be such that the presumed theorem of residues is satisfied. Moreover, the asymptotic behavior of $`f(w)`$ is tailored by the underlying physical problem and is basically dictated by the scattering of the waves by the edges of the blades . We obtain the following meromorphic function $`f(w)`$ of the complex variable $`w`$:

$$f(w)=\frac{dB_0\gamma _0e^{j\gamma _0h}}{[e^{j\beta _0d}1]}(\frac{j\gamma _0\alpha _0}{w\alpha _0})\frac{_1(w)}{_1(j\gamma _0)}\frac{_2(j\gamma _0)}{_2(w)}\mathrm{exp}[(j\gamma _0w)\frac{d\mathrm{ln}(2)}{\pi }]$$
(3)
where $`_1(w)\text{and}_2(w)`$ are the following infinite products:

$$_1(w)=\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(wj\gamma _p)(\frac{d}{p\pi })e^{\frac{dw}{p\pi }}$$
(4)
and:

$$_2(w)=\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(w\alpha _p)(w+\alpha _p)(\frac{d}{2p\pi })^2e^{\frac{dw}{p\pi }}$$
(5)
The propagation constants $`\gamma _m`$ along y, are given by:

$$\gamma _m^2=k^2\tau ^2(\frac{m\pi }{d})^2\text{ with }m\text{=0,1…}$$
(6)
In order to derive the dispersion relation, we form the ratio:

$$\frac{f(j\gamma _0)}{f(j\gamma _0)}=e^{2j\gamma _0h}$$
(7)
Taking the logarithm and using trigonometric identities \[Ref. 2\], we obtain:

$`\gamma _0h\gamma _0{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}(2)}{\pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{sin}^1({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{\beta _0}})+{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[\mathrm{tan}^1({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{\alpha _p}})+{\displaystyle \frac{d\gamma _0}{2\pi p}}]+{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[\mathrm{tan}^1({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{|\gamma _p|}}){\displaystyle \frac{d\gamma _0}{p\pi }}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[\mathrm{sin}^1({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{\beta _p}}){\displaystyle \frac{d\gamma _0}{2\pi p}}]`$ (8)
This equation is the same as that obtained by Hougardy and Hansen hougardy  who treated a single comb structure from the electromagnetic point of view. Here, we are dealing with the weak coupling symmetric case limit and with the additional simplifying assumptions: $`\frac{b}{d}1,\alpha _0b1\text{and}\alpha _p\beta _p`$. We find that the dispersion relation is essentially the same as in the case of a single comb structure. The double comb structure simply behaves as a single one from the dispersion relation point of view. This justifies our assumptions in Ref. 1 where we found very good agreement between theory and experiment up to frequencies on the order of 400 Hz. Nevertheless this is not true for reflection (transmission) coefficients of the single/double comb structures as discussed below.

In order to calculate the mode amplitudes and obtain from them the reflection (transmission) coefficients of the structure, we use the residue of $`f(w)`$ at $`w=\alpha _n`$:

$$Res[f(w)]_{w=\alpha _n}=A_n\beta _ne^{j\beta _nd/2}\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha _nb)$$
(9)
to obtain (n=0, 1, 2…):

$$\frac{|A_n|}{|B_0|}=\frac{d\gamma _0e^{\alpha _nb}}{16\pi \mathrm{cosh}(\alpha _nb)}\frac{|\alpha _n+\alpha _0|}{|\alpha _n\beta _n|}\frac{|\alpha _n+\alpha _1||\alpha _n\alpha _1|}{|\alpha _n+j\gamma _1|}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[2+\frac{d\alpha _n}{\pi }]\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\alpha _nd\mathrm{ln}(2)}{\pi })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[2+\frac{d}{2\pi }(\alpha _n+\beta _0)]\mathrm{\Gamma }[2+\frac{d}{2\pi }(\alpha _n\beta _0)]}$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ stands for the Euler Gamma function. For negative values of n, it suffices to change $`\alpha _n`$ into $`\alpha _n`$ in the above expression. Let us note that when the separation 2b between the two parts of the structure, becomes very large we recover exactly the expression found by Hougardy and Hansen hougardy  corresponding to a single comb structure.

In order to calculate the $`B_n`$ coefficients, we use:

$$f(j\gamma _n)=\frac{d}{2}\frac{B_n\gamma _ne^{j\gamma _nh}}{[()^n\mathrm{exp}(j\beta _0d)1]}$$
(11)
and the definition (3) of $`f(w)`$ to obtain:

$$\frac{|B_n|}{|B_0|}=\frac{2\gamma _0ϵ}{|\gamma _ne^{j\gamma _nh}|}\frac{|j\gamma _0\alpha _0|}{|j\gamma _n+\alpha _0|}\frac{|\text{ }_1(j\gamma _n)|}{|\text{ }_2\text{ }(j\gamma _n)|}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\beta _0d}{2})}{(\frac{\beta _0d}{2})}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{j\gamma _nd\mathrm{ln}(2)}{\pi })$$
(12)
where $`ϵ=1`$ for n even, and $`ϵ=\frac{1}{|\mathrm{tan}(\frac{\beta _0d)}{2})|}`$ for n odd.

Let us note that the $`B_n`$ coefficients are the same as those obtained by Hougardy and Hansen hougardy  reflecting the fact, the weak- coupling approximation affects in a different way the $`A_n`$ and the $`B_n`$ coefficients. This has important implications on our measurements of the amplitude profile.

## III COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENT

In our previous work, we derived the dispersion relation, transmission and reflection coefficients and found excellent agreement between the single comb structure theory and experiment up to 400 Hz lahlou . This work shows that a weak coupling between two comb structures does not affect the surface wave dispersion relations and the $`B_n`$ amplitude coefficients but it does affect the $`A_n`$ amplitude coefficients.

We are going to evaluate how our theory modifies the amplitude ratio $`\frac{|A_0|}{|B_0|}`$ associated with the fundamental mode (n=0) in relation (10) compared with same given in Lahlou et al. lahlou . The double comb over single comb structure ratio of the two expressions is given by:

$$F(\theta )=\frac{e^{\alpha _0b}}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha _0b)}$$
(13)
For a given frequency and a given incident angle $`\theta `$ we solve the dispersion relation given by equation (8), obtain the propagation factor $`\alpha _0`$ and use it in (13). The corrections F($`\theta `$) in dB are plotted versus $`\theta `$ in the interval  degrees for various frequencies \[400-600 Hz\] in Fig.2.

The correction comprised between 0 and -3 dB is small for higher frequencies and small incident angles. It decreases rapidly for angles larger than 10 to 20 degrees and by a larger amount for higher frequencies. A comparison to the experimental data reveals that the correction is pronounced mostly at higher frequency (336 Hz) and for the largest angle of incidence (47 degrees). For the highest experimental frequencies (480 and 496 Hz), the correction introduces more disagreement between the experimental and theoretical single comb structure theory. This behavior may be explained by the fact that there are several sources of errors associated with the measurements at these higher frequencies.

## IV CONCLUSION

We have developed a weak coupling theory based on the calculus of residues in order to model the oblique propagation of acoustic waves propagating through a slow wave filter made of a pair of comb structured waveguides separated by a distance that is large with respect to the inter-blade distance. The correction arising from the symmetrical coupling between the two waveguides has been evaluated and shown to improve slightly the agreement between the theoretical and the experimental values of Lahlou et al. lahlou  being at the most 3 dB for the largest frequency and angle evaluated. Those results show that the approximation taken in our previous investigation is quite acceptable and that the new theory does not bring substantial additional accuracy to our previous single comb structure model. Our studies of the strong coupling case ($`b<d`$) being mathematically much more complicated, and intended for improving the agreement between the theoretical results and the experimental ones at the higher frequencies are in progress and will be reported in the near future.