text:
# Self-gravitating domain walls and the thin-wall limit

## I Introduction

The gravitational properties of domain walls have been studied in the past due to their striking implications for cosmology. Recently, however, they have been object of intense investigation for different reasons. One the one hand, it has been pointed out that four-dimensional gravity can be realized on a thin wall interpolating between $`AdS`$ spacetimes . In addition, wall configurations are relevant for the study of RGE flows in the context of $`AdS`$/CFT correspondence .

The first attempts to study these gravitational properties were based in the so-called thin wall limit . In a four-dimensional spacetime, the wall is treated as an infinitely thin (2+1) surface. The spacetime outside the wall is given by vacuum solutions to the Einstein field equations with a planar symmetry, and one can use the Darmois-Israel  thin wall formalism to match solutions across the surface. Under this approximation, it is possible to find exact solutions representing an infinitely thin wall with an associated surface energy density. Spacetimes containing a thin domain wall have therefore distributional curvatures and energy-momentum tensors, proportional to delta functions supported in the wall’s surface.

However, as pointed out in , these thin walls may be very artificial constructions in the sense that they do not necessarily correspond to the appropriate limit of a thick domain wall. Thick domain walls are solutions to the coupled Einstein-scalar field equations interpolating between minima of a potential with a spontaneously broken discrete symmetry. In order for this thick walls to have a thin wall limit an appropriate distributional treatment of the curvature and energy-momentum tensors is required. As is well known, computing the curvature tensor from a metric requires nonlinear operations which are not defined within the framework of distribution theory, and this imposes strong constraints in the class of metrics whose curvature tensors make sense as distributions .

The first exact thick wall solution in D=4 was obtained by Goetz . The only other solution in the literature is the one of Ref. , for a thick wall without reflection symmetry. Numerical solutions were found in  (see also references therein). The thin wall limit of these solutions has not been studied. All of these solutions represent walls in spacetimes without a cosmological constant.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we analyze the thin wall limit of thick wall solutions. We find that the solution of  has a well-defined thin wall limit. We also show that this solution can be obtained by an appropriate scaling of a solution of Einstein’s equations in vacuum with a planar symmetry. Using this fact, we generate a number of exact solutions to the Einstein-scalar field equations using the vacuum solutions. We then show that the only wall that can be considered a thick domain wall and that possesses a thin wall limit is the one of Ref. .

Secondly, we look for solutions representing a domain wall embedded in a four-dimensional spacetime with a negative cosmological constant. We show how the scaling procedure can be modified to generate such solutions, and find an exact solution for a thick domain wall interpolating between two $`AdS_4`$ vacua. This wall is then shown to have a curvature and energy-momentum tensor well defined as distributions and the corresponding distributional thin-wall limit is obtained. The possibility of obtaining this solution within the supergravity inspired first order formalism of Ref.  is also investigated, and the scalar field potential is shown to satisfy the requirements for the existence of stable $`AdS`$ vacua.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we study the thin wall limit of thick wall solutions. In Section III, we show how exact solutions can be found by scaling thin wall spacetimes, and show that the new solutions found do not represent true domain walls. In Section IV, a new solution for a domain wall in an $`AdS`$ spacetime is found and analyzed. We summarize our results on Section V, and include an Appendix for the reader interested in the details of the distributional analysis.

## II From thick to thin domain walls

Consider the spacetime ($`R^4`$, g), where the metric in a particular coordinate system is given by

$$g_{ab}=\mathrm{cosh}(\beta x/\delta )^{2\delta }[dt_adt_b+dx_adx_b+e^{2\beta t}(dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b)]$$
(1)
where $`\beta `$ and $`\delta `$ are constants. In Ref. , this spacetime has been shown to be the one generated by a “thick” domain wall, i.e. it is a solution to the coupled Einstein-scalar field equations:

$$R_{ab}\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}R=8\pi T_{ab},$$
(2)
$$T_{ab}=_a\varphi _b\varphi g_{ab}\left(\frac{1}{2}_c\varphi ^c\varphi +V(\varphi )\right)$$
(3)
and

$$_a^a\varphi \frac{dV(\varphi )}{d\varphi }=0,$$
(4)
with

$$\varphi =\varphi _0\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\mathrm{sinh}(\beta x/\delta )\right),\varphi _0\sqrt{\frac{\delta (1\delta )}{4\pi }}$$
(5)
and

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{1+2\delta }{8\pi \delta }\beta ^2\left[\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi /\varphi _0\right)\right]^{2(1\delta )}$$
(6)
where $`0<\delta <1`$. This solutions represent a domain wall of (finite) thickness $`\delta `$. The scalar field takes values $`\pm \varphi _0\pi /2`$ at $`x=\pm \mathrm{}`$, corresponding to two consecutive minima of the potential, and interpolates smoothly between these values at the origin.

The metric (1) is only one of many possible thick domain wall solutions which can be obtained under the requirements: i) $`V(\varphi )0`$, ii) $`g^{ab}_a\varphi _b\varphi >0`$ and iii) reflection symmetry. However, (1,5,6) is the only analytic solution encountered in the literature so far  (for a study of its properties, see ). Numerical treatments can be found in  and references therein.

Next, consider the $`\delta 1`$ and $`\delta 0`$ limits of this spacetime:

1. For $`\delta 1`$ we have $`\varphi =0,V(\varphi )=3\beta ^2`$, and the metric

$$g_{ab}=\left(\mathrm{cosh}(\beta x)\right)^2\left[dt_adt_b+dx_adx_b+e^{2\beta t}(dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b)\right]$$
(7)
turns out to be a solution to the Einstein field equations for the vacuum with a cosmological constant term

$$R_{ab}\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}R+g_{ab}\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=V(\varphi )|_{\delta =1}=3\beta ^2`$. Under the assumption that the energy-momentum tensor of a thin wall can be approximated by a cosmological constant outside the wall (where the nearly-constant potential term is dominating), the solution (7) of (8) can be interpreted as representing the spacetime at some distance from the wall . However, notice that there is no thin wall at the origin or elsewhere, the metric being well-defined in all spacetime and having a non-singular curvature tensor. In fact, the limit $`\delta 1`$ can be considered as representing a wall of infinite thickness.

2. We turn now to the $`\delta 0`$ limit. In order to compute this limit we consider the curvature tensor and the Einstein tensor as distributional tensor fields. As is well known, the curvature tensor being non linear does not make sense in general as a distribution. However, the metric (1) is a smooth metric that belongs to the class of regular metrics , and for a regular metric the curvature tensor makes sense as a distribution. Since any contraction of a distribution is also a distribution, for a regular metric the Einstein tensor is well defined as a distribution.

Taking the $`\delta 0`$ limit, we find

$$\underset{\delta 0}{lim}g_{ab}=e^{2\beta |x|}(dt_adt_b+dx_adx_b+e^{2\beta t}(dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b)),$$
(9)
which for $`x<0`$ and $`x>0`$ is a vacuum solution of the Einstein field equations , and

$$\underset{\delta 0}{lim}G_b^a=4\beta \delta (x)\left[t^adt_b+y^ady_b+z^adz_b\right]$$
(10)
This means that the spacetime ($`R^4`$, g), with the metric given by (1), can be identified in the limit $`\delta 0`$ with the spacetime $`(R^4,g)`$, with $`g`$ given by (9), generated by a thin domain wall with energy-momentum tensor given by

$$8\pi T_b^a=4\beta \delta (x)\left[t^adt_b+y^ady_b+z^adz_b\right]$$
(11)
As expected, (11) can be obtained from (9) by using the formalism of Israel  to treat surface layers.

Actually, to be rigorous, one should prove that the metric (1) provides a sequence of metrics that satisfies the required convergence condition of . Then the limit of the curvature tensor exists and is the curvature tensor of the limit metric. We leave this rather technical proof for the Appendix.

Remarkably enough, the metrics (1), solution to the coupled Einstein-scalar field equations, and (7), vacuum solution, can be rewritten simply as

$`{}_{\delta }{}^{}g_{ab}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`f^{2\delta }(x/\delta )[dt_adt_b+dx_adx_b+e^{2\beta t}(dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b)]`$ (12)
$`g_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`f^2(x)[dt_adt_b+dx_adx_b+e^{2\beta t}(dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b)]`$ (14)
respectively, where $`f(x)=\mathrm{cosh}(\beta x)^1`$. This opens up the interesting possibility of generating “thick wall” solutions from the “thin wall” ones, i.e. by scaling vacuum solutions with positive, negative or null cosmological constant. In the next section, we will explore this possibility.

## III From thin to thick walls

We wish to find solutions to the coupled Einstein-scalar field equations (2-4) with a planar symmetry, where the scalar field $`\varphi `$ is static. In its most general form, the metric can be written

$$g_{ab}=f(x)^2[dt_adt_b+dx_adx_b]+B(x,t)^2[(1\kappa r^2)^1dr^2+r^2d\phi ^2]$$
(15)
where $`\kappa `$ is the curvature of the $`x,t=const.`$ surfaces. Requiring that $`\varphi `$ be a function of the coordinate perpendicular to the wall only, and that the spacetime be boost-invariant in directions parallel to the wall, it can be shown  that

$$B(x,t)=f(x)C(t)$$
(16)
where the function $`C(t)`$ satisfies (dot indicates differentiation with respect to $`t`$)

$$\frac{\ddot{C}(t)}{C(t)}=\frac{\dot{C}(t)^2}{C(t)^2}+\frac{\kappa }{C(t)^2}=\beta ^2$$
(17)
The time-dependence of the solutions depends on the sign of the constant $`\beta ^2`$. For positively curved ($`\kappa >0`$) or planar ($`\kappa =0`$) walls, $`\beta ^2`$ is positive and we have

$`C(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\beta t},\mathrm{when}\kappa =0`$ (18)
$`C(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}(\beta t),\beta ^2=\kappa ,\mathrm{when}\kappa >0`$ (20)
whereas for negatively curved ($`\kappa <0`$) walls the sign of $`\beta ^2`$ is arbitrary, and three solutions are possible

$`C(t)`$ $`=\mathrm{sinh}(\beta t),`$ $`\beta ^2=\kappa `$ (21)
$`=\sqrt{\kappa }t,`$ $`\beta ^2=0`$ (22)
$`=\mathrm{sin}(\beta t),`$ $`\beta ^2=\kappa `$ (23)
Then the system (2-4) reduces to just two equations for the potential and the scalar field. Define (prime denotes derivative respect to $`x`$)

$$u(x)\frac{f(x)^{}}{f(x)};$$
(24)
then

$`\varphi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\left[u(x)^{}+u(x)^2\beta ^2\right]`$ (25)
$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi f^2}}\left[u(x)^{}2(u(x)^2+\beta ^2)\right].`$ (27)
The solution of Refs.  is found with $`f(x)=[\mathrm{cosh}(\beta x/\delta )]^\delta `$, with $`\kappa =0`$ and $`C(t)`$ given by (18), while as noted in the previous section, a vacuum solution with a cosmological constant is obtained with $`f(x)=[\mathrm{cosh}(\beta x)]^1`$ and the same curvature and time-dependence.

We have found that this is a general result: the system (25-27) can be integrated with the scaled function

$$f(x)=f_0(x/\delta )^\delta ,$$
(28)
where $`f_0(x)`$ is a solution to the Einstein field equations in vacuum with a cosmological constant for the metric (15).

This is easily shown. Substituting(28) in (25)

$$\varphi ^2=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[\frac{1}{\delta }u_0(x/\delta )^{}+u_0(x/\delta )^2\beta ^2\right]$$
(29)
where now prime denotes derivative respect to the argument. Since $`f_0`$ satisfies the Einstein equations (8), we have

$`u_0(x/\delta )^{}+2(u_0(x/\delta )^2\beta ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }f_0(x/\delta )^2`$ (30)
$`u_0(x/\delta )^2\beta ^2u_0(x/\delta )^{}=0,`$ (31)
and substituting in (29,27)

$$\varphi =\sqrt{\frac{\delta (1\delta )}{4\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}_{x_0}^{x/\delta }f_0(\xi )𝑑\xi ,$$
(32)
$$V(x)=\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\left(\frac{1+2\delta }{\delta }\right)f_0(x/\delta )^{2(1\delta )}.$$
(33)
It is then possible to generate solutions representing a self-gravitating scalar field wall using the vacuum solutions of Ref. . The time-dependence of the metric and the curvature of the wall will be preserved.

For vacuum solutions with (15,16) and negative cosmological constant we get:

1. with $`f_0(x)=[\mathrm{sinh}(\beta x)]^1`$, corresponding to a vacuum solution with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3\beta ^2`$, a solution of (2-6) with

$`f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{sinh}(\beta x/\delta )]^\delta `$ (34)
$`\varphi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _0\mathrm{coth}^1[\mathrm{cosh}(\beta x/\delta )],\varphi _0\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\delta 1)}{4\pi }}}`$ (35)
$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta +1}{\delta }}[\mathrm{sinh}(\varphi /\varphi _0)]^{2(1\delta )}`$ (36)
As in the vacuum case, $`C(t)`$ is given by either (18), (20), or (21) when the curvature of the wall is zero, positive or negative respectively.
2. with $`f_0(x)=[1+\alpha x]^1`$, corresponding to a vacuum solution with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3\alpha ^2`$, a solution of (2-6) with

$`f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`[1+\alpha x/\delta ]^\delta `$ (37)
$`\varphi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _0\mathrm{ln}(1+\alpha x/\delta ),\varphi _0\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\delta 1)}{4\pi }}}`$ (38)
$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta +1}{\delta }}exp[2(\delta 1)\varphi /\varphi _0]`$ (39)
In this case the plane wall corresponds to a static solution $`C(t)=1`$, but a non-static wall is possible with negative curvature and $`C(t)`$ given by (22),
3. with (15,16) and $`f_0(x)=[\mathrm{cos}(\beta x)]^1`$, vacuum solution with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3\beta ^2`$, a solution of (2-6) with

$`f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{cos}(\beta x/\delta )]^\delta `$ (40)
$`\varphi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _0\mathrm{tanh}^1[\mathrm{sin}(\beta x/\delta )],\varphi _0\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\delta +1)}{4\pi }}}`$ (41)
$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta 1}{\delta }}[\mathrm{cosh}(\varphi /\varphi _0)]^{2(1\delta )}`$ (42)

The wall must have in this case negative curvature and $`C(t)`$ given by (23).

A fourth non-trivial vacuum solution exists with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, namely

$$f(x)=e^{\pm \beta x}$$
(43)
but obviously it cannot generate a thick wall solution by the same scaling procedure.

All of these solutions have an energy-momentum tensor of the form

$$T_b^a=\rho (x)[t^adt_b+y^ady_b+z^adz_b]+p(x)x^adx_b$$
(44)
compatible with a static scalar field wall. In the first solution, the parameter $`\delta `$ can be interpreted as the wall’s thickness, just as in the solution of the previous section. However, notice that this spacetime contains a singularity which seems to be much worse than the one produced by a source concentrated on a thin wall. In this example the metric is not regular, and we cannot assign to it a distributional source following the approach of .

In fact, none of these solutions represents a domain wall. Namely, none of the potentials above has minima or is even bounded from below. These wall solutions are not topologically protected, and their stability is thus not guaranteed. For example, take case 1 above. Although $`\varphi `$ takes constant values at infinity, it does not interpolate smoothly between them.

Notice also that far from the walls one recovers the vacuum solutions. Again, take case 1: the metric has the same asymptotic behavior as the domain wall solution of Section II,

$$g_{ab}e^{\beta |x|}[dt_adt_b+dx_adx_b+e^{2\beta t}(dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b)]\mathrm{when}\beta |x|\mathrm{}.$$
(45)
This is an important point: finding a vacuum solution to the Einstein equations with planar symmetry, and then using the thin shell formalism of Israel may produce a thin wall which is not the thin limit of a scalar thick domain wall. In this sense, the thin wall solution is less artificial if it can be obtained as the limit of a smooth configuration.

It is possible however to find other solutions to (25,27), not generated by thin wall ones, that do represent a thick domain wall with a well defined thin wall limit, as we do in the next section.

## IV A thick domain wall with cosmological constant

In this section we consider thick domain walls embedded in a spacetime with negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ is particularly interesting because the positive effective gravitational mass density of $`AdS_4`$ spacetime may counteract the negative effective gravitational mass density of the domain wall. On the other hand, a certain type of these solutions may be realized as supersymmetric bosonic field configuration . Clearly, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ we are looking for domain wall solutions where the effective potential $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}V+\mathrm{\Lambda }/8\pi `$ is not necessarily positive-definite, requiring only that it is bounded from below.

Assuming a conformally flat symmetric ansatz for the metric

$$g_{ab}=f(x)^2[dt_adt_b+dx_adx_b+dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b]$$
(46)
and also that the scalar field depends only on $`x`$, the equations of motion are (25, 27) where $`\beta =0`$, and with the addition of a cosmological constant term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/8\pi `$ to the right-hand-side of (27).

We look for reflection symmetric domain wall solutions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$. Under the requirements

$`V(\varphi )>0`$

$`lim_{|x|0}|\varphi (x)^{}|=0`$

$`\varphi ^{}(0)=0`$ (nonsingular solution)

$`(f^2)^{}|_{x=0}=0`$ (reflection symmetry)

we find the solution

$`f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\alpha ^2x^2)^{(1/2)},`$ (47)
$`\varphi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _0\mathrm{tan}^1(\alpha x),`$ (48)
$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\alpha ^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /\varphi _0),`$ (49)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`3\alpha ^2.`$ (50)
where $`\varphi _0=\sqrt{1/4\pi }`$. This solution represents a class of gravitating domain walls that interpolate smoothly between two minima of the potential $`V(\varphi )`$, the spacetime being asymptotically $`AdS_4`$. With the coordinate change

$$\alpha \xi =\mathrm{sinh}^1(\alpha x),$$
(51)
the line element takes the form

$$g_{ab}=\mathrm{cosh}^2(\alpha \xi )[dt_adt_b+dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b]+d\xi ^2,$$
(52)
which asymptotically behaves as $`AdS_4`$

$$g_{ab}4e^{2\alpha |\xi |}[dt_adt_b+dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b]+d\xi ^2\mathrm{when}\alpha |\xi |\mathrm{}.$$
(53)
We now wish to consider the thin wall limit. However, $`AdS_4`$ domain wall solutions generically have two free parameters: one for the asymptotic $`AdS`$ curvature and one for the wall’s width. Thus, in order to introduce a second parameter in the solution found, we make a scaling of the metric tensor as in the previous section.

Consider the scaled metric

$$g_{ab}dx^adx^b=\mathrm{cosh}^{2\delta }(\alpha \xi /\delta )[dt_adt_b+dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b]+d\xi ^2$$
(54)
We find this time

$`\varphi (\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _0\mathrm{tan}^1\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha \xi /\delta ),`$ (55)
$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\alpha ^2\left(3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta }}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /\varphi _0),`$ (56)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`3\alpha ^2`$ (57)
with $`\varphi _0=\sqrt{\delta /4\pi }`$. It is easy to see that the metric (54) is a regular metric in the differentiable structure provided by the coordinate chart $`\{t,\xi ,y,z\}`$. It follows that the curvature and Einstein tensor fields are well defined as distributions.

Computations analogous to the ones in the Appendix show that

$$\underset{\delta 0}{lim}g_{ab}=4e^{2\alpha |\xi |}\left(dt_adt_b+dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b\right)+d\xi _ad\xi _b,$$
(58)
which is also a regular metric and

$$\underset{\delta 0}{lim}(G_b^a+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_b^a)=4\alpha \delta (\xi )\left(_t^adt_b+_y^ady_b+_z^adz_b\right)$$
(59)
where $`\xi =0`$ is the codimension one hypersurface where the thin wall is located and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by (57).

Thus, we have found a two-parameter family of self-gravitating scalar fields with a thick domain wall profile interpolating between two $`AdS_4`$ vacua. Furthermore, these solutions have a distributional curvature tensor with a well-defined thin wall limit in the sense of Ref. .

As stated above, the domain wall spacetime considered in this section is asymptotically $`AdS_4`$. It is known that restrictions on the potential are to be imposed from the requirement that there exist a stable $`AdS`$ vacuum . In $`D`$ dimensions, for a model with Lagrangian density

$$=\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}R\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2𝒱(\varphi )\right]$$
(60)
vacuum stability requires $`𝒱`$ to take the form

$$𝒱=2(D2)\left[(D2)\left(\frac{dW}{d\varphi }\right)^2(D1)W^2\right]$$
(61)
where $`W(\varphi )`$ is any function with at least one critical point . Critical points of $`W`$ are also critical points of $`𝒱`$ and in the context of supergravity theories the critical points of $`W`$ yield stable $`AdS`$ vacua .

For the domain wall solution (54-57), this is equivalent to requiring that

$$𝒱=V_{\mathrm{eff}}=V+\mathrm{\Lambda }=4\left[2\left(\frac{dW}{d\varphi }\right)^23W^2\right]$$
(62)
with $`V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ given by (56) and (57) respectively. It follows that in this case

$$W(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\beta \mathrm{sin}(\varphi /\varphi _0)$$
(63)
whose critical points are $`\varphi =\pm \pi \varphi _0/2`$. Whether a supergravity theory can be constructed so that the supersymmetry conditions lead to (63) is a question beyond the scope of this paper. But since the critical points of (63) are the asymptotic values of $`\varphi `$, as given by (55), this suggests that these asymptotic $`AdS`$ vacua are stable.

It should be noted that (54-57) can be parametrized by (63), so we could have found it using the first order formalism of . However, (55) is not the familiar kink which one usually encounters in the literature, whether supersymmetric or not . Finally, in Ref.  an example with a superpotential similar to (63) has been considered in $`D=5`$, in the study of how four-dimensional gravity arises on a thick wall interpolating between two $`AdS_5`$ spacetimes.

## V Concluding remarks

We have studied the thin-wall limit of thick domain wall solutions in a (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. We have shown that the solution (1) of Ref.  represents a spacetime with a regular metric in the sense of Ref , and that the thin wall limit can be taken rigorously in distribution theory. Not surprisingly, in the thin-wall limit solution (1) becomes the well-known thin wall solution of . We have also demonstrated that this thick solution can be obtained by appropriately scaling thin, i.e. vacuum, ones. However, although other solutions to the Einstein-scalar field coupled equations can be systematically obtained by the same procedure, it does not follow that these new solutions are thick walls, even if they have the appropriate asymptotic behavior far from the origin and the stress-energy tensor of a wall. The scalar field potential is in general not bounded from below and the scalar field configurations are not topologically protected, thus probably unstable.

Using a similar scaling procedure, we have obtained a solution representing a thick domain wall embedded in a $`AdS_4`$ spacetime. The cosmological constant, as expected, is related to the wall’ s surface energy density. This solution was shown to have a thin-wall limit, with a stress-energy tensor which is well defined as a distribution. The potential is positive definite and the scalar field smoothly interpolates between two $`AdS`$ vacua. Moreover, the scalar field potential for this solution has been shown to satisfy the requirements for the existence of stable $`AdS`$ vacua, being derivable from a superpotential function. The possible connection with supergravity theories, and the stability of the solution under perturbations are currently under investigation.

## VI Acknowledgements

We wish to thank H. Rago and A. Skirzewski for discussions. This work was financed by CDCHT-ULA under project C-1066-01-05-B.

## VII Appendix

In this paper we use the definition of tensor distribution given by Geroch and Traschen. The reader is referred to  for details.

Definition: A symmetric tensor field $`g_{ab}`$ will be called a regular metric provided that i) $`g_{ab}`$ and $`(g^1)^{ab}`$ exist everywhere and are locally bounded and ii) the weak derivative of $`g_{ab}`$ in some smooth metric $`\eta _{ab}`$ exists and is locally square integrable.

The curvature tensor and the Einstein tensor of a regular metric make sense as distributions, therefore it makes sense to write Einstein’s equations with a distributional energy-momentum tensor. Furthermore, these idealized matter sources are necessarily concentrated on submanifolds of codimension of at most one.

First define conveniently the smooth tensor fields

$`S_{ab}`$ $``$ $`dt_adt_b+dx_adx_b+e^{2\beta t}(dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b)`$ (64)
$`(S^1)^{ab}`$ $``$ $`_t^a_t^b+_x^a_x^b+e^{2\beta t}(_y^a_y^b+_z^a_z^b)`$ (65)
Now let

$${}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}=\mathrm{cosh}(\beta nx)^{2/n}S_{ab},g_{ab}=e^{2\beta |x|}S_{ab}$$
(66)
and

$$({}_{n}{}^{}g_{}^{1})^{ab}=\mathrm{cosh}(\beta nx)^{2/n}(S^1)^{ab},(g^1)^{ab}=e^{2\beta |x|}(S^1)^{ab}$$
(67)
Let $`U^{ab}`$ be a test tensor field defined on $`R^4`$. We have

$${}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}U^{ab}=\mathrm{cosh}(n\beta x)^{2/n}[U^{tt}+U^{xx}+e^{2\beta t}(U^{yy}+U^{zz})]\omega _\eta $$
(68)
and

$$g_{ab}U^{ab}=e^{2\beta |x|}\left[U^{tt}+U^{xx}+e^{2\beta t}(U^{yy}+U^{zz})\right]\omega _\eta .$$
(69)
Clearly, $`{}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}`$ and $`g_{ab}`$ are locally bounded. Let $`U_{ab}`$ be a test tensor field defined on $`R^4`$. We have

$$({}_{n}{}^{}g_{}^{1})^{ab}U_{ab}=\mathrm{cosh}(n\beta x)^{2/n}[U_{tt}+U_{xx}+e^{2\beta t}(U_{yy}+U_{zz})]\omega _\eta $$
(70)
and

$$(g^1)^{ab}U_{ab}=e^{2\beta |x|}\left[U_{tt}+U_{xx}+e^{2\beta t}(U_{yy}+U_{zz})\right]\omega _\eta $$
(71)
Hence $`({}_{n}{}^{}g_{}^{1})^{ab}`$ and $`(g^1)_{ab}`$ are locally bounded also.

Now choose as a smooth derivative operator $`_a`$, the one compatible with the Minkowski metric $`\eta _{ab}`$ and let $`U^{cab}`$ be a test tensor field on $`R^4`$. The weak derivative in $`\eta _{ab}`$ of $`{}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}`$ and $`g_{ab}`$ exist everywhere and are given by

$$_c({}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{})[U^{cab}]{}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}[_cU^{cab}]=_{R^4}{}_{n}{}^{}W_{cab}^{}U^{cab}\omega _\eta $$
(72)
and the equivalent expression for $`g_{ab}`$, where

$${}_{n}{}^{}W_{cab}^{}=2\beta \mathrm{cosh}(n\beta x)^{2/n}\{\mathrm{tanh}(n\beta x)dx_c[dt_adt_bdx_adx_b+e^{2\beta t}(dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b)]e^{2\beta t}dt_c(dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b)\}$$
(73)
and

$$W_{cab}=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\beta e^{2\beta x}[dx_c(dt_adt_b+dx_adx_b)+e^{2\beta t}(dt_c+dx_c)(dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b)],\hfill & x<0\hfill \\ & \\ 2\beta e^{2\beta x}[dx_c(dt_adt_b+dx_adx_b)+e^{2\beta t}(dt_cdx_c)(dy_ady_b+dz_adz_b)],\hfill & x>0\hfill \end{array}$$
(74)
with $`\omega _\eta `$ the volume element in $`\eta _{ab}`$ and where it is understood that $`\eta _{ab}`$ and its inverse are used to raise and lower tensor indices. It then follows that $`_c({}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}){}_{n}{}^{}W_{cab}^{}`$ and $`_cg_{ab}W_{cab}`$ are locally square integrable. Therefore both $`{}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}`$ and $`g_{ab}`$ are regular metrics.

Now we can consider the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$.

Theorem: Let $`{}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}`$ and $`g_{ab}`$ be regular metrics. Let i) $`{}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}`$ and $`({}_{n}{}^{}g_{}^{1})^{ab}`$ be locally uniformly bounded and ii) $`{}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}`$, $`({}_{n}{}^{}g_{}^{1})^{ab}`$ and the weak derivative $`_c({}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{})`$ converge locally in square integral to $`g_{ab}`$, $`(g^1)^{ab}`$ and $`_cg_{ab}`$ respectively. Then the corresponding curvature distributions $`{}_{n}{}^{}R_{abc}^{d}`$ converge to $`R_{abc}^d`$ in the following sense: for any test field $`U_d^{abc}`$,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{}_{n}{}^{}R_{abc}^{d}[U_d^{abc}]=R_{abc}^d[U_d^{abc}]$$
(75)
(See  for the proof).

It is straightforward to prove that (66-71) and (73,74) satisfy the conditions of the above theorem. We have

$$|({}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}|U^{ab})||(S_{ab}|U^{ab})|$$
(76)
and

$$|(({}_{n}{}^{}g_{}^{1})^{ab}|U_{ab})|[2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta x)]^2|((S^1)^{ab}|U_{ab})|$$
(77)
It follows that $`{}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}U^{ab}`$ and $`({}_{n}{}^{}g_{}^{1})^{ab}U_{ab}`$ are bounded by smooth tensor fields with compact support, i.e. test fields. Therefore $`{}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}`$ and $`({}_{n}{}^{}g_{}^{1})^{ab}`$ are locally uniformly bounded.

Let $`U^{abcd}`$ be a test tensor field on $`R^4`$. Define

$$\rho _n({}_{n}{}^{}g,g)_{R^4}({}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}g_{ab})({}_{n}{}^{}g_{cd}^{}g_{cd})U^{abcd}\omega _\eta $$
(78)
It is easy to see that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho _n({}_{n}{}^{}g,g)=0.$$
(79)
Then $`{}_{n}{}^{}g_{ab}^{}`$ converges locally in square integral to $`g_{ab}`$. The equivalent relation holds true for $`({}_{n}{}^{}g_{}^{1})^{ab}`$. Finally, let $`U^{abcdef}`$ be a test tensor field on $`R^4`$. We have

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{R^4}({}_{n}{}^{}W_{abc}^{}W_{abc})({}_{n}{}^{}W_{cdf}^{}W_{cdf})U^{abcdef}\omega _\eta =0.$$
(80)
Therefore $`{}_{n}{}^{}W_{abc}^{}`$ converges locally in square integral to $`W_{abc}`$.


format: text

text:
# On the distribution function of the information speed in computer network

## 1 Introduction

For the Internet user the most important parameter of the network is the speed at which one retrieves documents. Anyone browsing the Internet for preprints and articles (xxx.lanl.gov, publish.aps.org, elsevier.nl, iop.org, wspc.com, etc.), or looking for the news and weather, booking tickets, making hotel reservations, etc. asks himself: why is the Web so slow? This is precisely the question which motivates our work.

The Internet efficiency depends upon the two main aspects of the network, topology and transport. The topology and connectivity features of the Internet were discussed by Newmann and Barabasi at this Conference , and our main subject is the review of the Internet transport investigation: its measurements, properties and modelling.

The first set of properties is connected with natural characteristics of human activity. In this connection, the daily working hours lead to a daily periodicity of the web traffic, the work week leads to a weekly periodicity (weekends!), the annual calendar leads to an annual periodicity (winter and summer vacations!), and so on. Holidays and important events (political campaigns, etc.) can also affect the traffic. The latest and most sudden example is the congestion of all news servers on September 11 of 2001 just after the terrorist attack on America.

The second set of the web traffic properties is connected with the fact that the path from one point on the web (e.g., user) and another point (e.g., server) is not stable. The path is often quite complicated and consists of a number of routers, channels, caches, etc., which changes with time because the network constantly develops . This reminds us of the ancient philosopher Heraclites, who asserted “You cannot step twice into the same river”. We could say the same about the Internet river. The third set of properties further complicating the measurements is connected with the dynamics of the Internet traffic for many autonomous systems, which leads to the random changes in the transport topology and therefore in the timing and loading characteristics.

The knowledge obtained on the Internet traffic properties is reviewed in this article.

## 2 Network traffic: $`1/f`$ noise and models.

Network traffic has been the subject of intensive investigations especially in the last eight years after WWW technology was invented. Nevertherless, we still do not have a single simple answer to the main question of why is the Web so slow?.

One of the main difficulties of understanding the Internet nature is that it is neither centrally planned nor configured. It is a good example of the self-organised global structure which is still a self-growing one. People who are running the Internet started in 2000 their annual workshop on the passive and active measurements (PAM) on the Internet. The relation between passive and active measurements is still not understood. Active measurements are easily understood but do not clearly predict actual Internet and Web performance; passive Internet/Web measurements can reflect actual performance but can be hard to interpret. Passive measurement is nothing but data acquisition to log-files of the transactions routinely done by the routers, switches, proxies, caches and workstations. One could find this information in the corresponding log-files. The active measurements could be divided into several groups. The two most extreme are RTT information and modelling of the user activity. RTT (round trip time) between two nodes on the Internet could be obtained, f.e., using the usual Unix command ping. The resulting value can be used by many protocols for different reasons like, f.e., for a path optimization or more often just to check whether the given node is accessible or not.

The distribution of RTT times is not trivial and it is the subject of intensive investigation after the pioneering paper of Csabai . Analysing the results of several hundreds of RTTs obtained in two weeks between his workstation in Budapest, Hungary, and an ftp server in Helsinki, Finland Csabai found that the power spectral density could be described by power law $`1/f^{1.15}`$ in a wide range of frequencies $`f`$ from $`10^4Hz`$ to $`0.5Hz`$.

Actually, the self-similarity in computer traffic was found a little bit earlier by Leland et al.  for the packet flow density in several local Ethernet networks at the Bellcore Morristown Research and Engineering Center. They found “heavy tails” in the cumulative distribution function of the packet sizes. At that time none of the commonly used traffic models was able to capture this fractal-like behavior.

Takaysu et al.  developed a contact process (CP) model of jam dynamics on the Internet. They associated a particle with the non-jamming gateway which can reproduce another particle at a neighboring site at a rate $`p`$, and can annihilate (i.e. jammed gateway) spontaneously at a rate $`q`$, and $`p+q1`$. They found that the survival probability at the critical point ($`\delta =1p/q0`$) was proportional to the inverse time $`1/t`$. Moreover, assuming that the RTT times are the two-valued function, taking values $`h`$ and $`0`$, they showed that the power spectrum proportional to $`1/f^\alpha `$ with value $`\alpha `$ bounded, $`0<\alpha 1`$. This result seems to be supported by the analysis of Ethernet and Internet traffic in a series of papers by Takayusu, et al. .

Huisinga et al.  introduced a microscopic model for the packet transport on the Internet. Data are divided into small packets of a definite size. These data packets move, for fixed source and destination hosts, due to the structure of TCP/IP, along a temporally fixed route. Therefore, the transport between two specific hosts can be viewed as a one-dimensional process. The cellular automaton model Assymetric Simple Exclusion Process (ASEP) has an important property - the occurence of boundary-induced pase transitions .

Analysing the power spectrum of the travel times Huisinga et al.  identified three phases: free flow characterized by the white noise, congested phase with $`1/f^{1/2}`$-noise at low frequencies and white noise at high frequencies, and critical load phase with with $`1/f`$-noise at low frequencies and white noise at high frequencies. They concluded with the important observation that the jamming properties are not related to the structure of the network and rather connected with the paths with critical load.

## 3 Server load and latency times

Although the traffic models discussed in the previous section seem to explain some pecularities of the Internet traffic at the critical path load, some recently observed phenomena connected with the server critical load (news servers!) are still not understood.

Barford and Crovella  find surprising effect of server load. When the network is heavily loaded (i.e., packet loss rates are high), it is not uncommon for a heavily loaded server to show a better mean response time than a lightly loaded server. Their measurements suggest that this may be because heavily loaded servers often show lower packet loss rates, and since packet losses have dramatic effects on transfer latency, this can reduce the mean response time.

In the rest of this section I will analyse the probability distribution function of the latency times and arrive at the simplest experimental setup having the property observed by Barford and Crovella .

It is a commonly accepted picture (see, f.e., Figure 1 in the paper by Helbing, et al. ) that the distribution of download times (i.e., latency times) is log-normal and that this property leads to the $`1/f`$ property of the Internet traffic.

In fact, the distribution function of latency times is multipeaked . The peaks could be associated with two sets of factors. The first ones are connected with the different throughput of the particular paths between user worskstation and destination servers. This fact is clearly visible for some preprint and reprint library servers placed in the Far East. The next set of factors is connected with the traffic content. The speed of document retrieval depends on the type of document: text, image, binary file, audio, video, etc. Indeed, it is practically possible to decompose the distribution function into the more elementary ones analysing the content of the proxy server log files and using the above-mentioned two sets of factors. Nevertherless, even in this case, the distribution function of elementary processes like taking files from a particular archive (say, Los Alamos Archive) to a given workstation, the distribution more often demonstrates two peaks .

The same effect of multipeaked distributions could also be obtained analysing RTT times on a short path between workstation and border router. Figure 1 shows a histogram of RTT times between workstation (connected to 100 Mbps/s Ethernet fiber-optic campus network of Chernogolovka Science Park (AS 9113)) and border Cisco router BNS045 (147.45.20.221) of FREEnet. AS 9113 and BNS045 connected by a 2 Mbps ATM channel. Workstation and border router are separated by only one LAN router. The large and narrow peak at about 7 $`ms`$ is associated with the round trip time of a 64 bit ping packet in the path connecting three devices with an empty 2 Mbps ATM channel. The next and wide peak at about 750 $`ms`$ could be associated with the router congestions. The fact that these peaks are well separated is due to some particular features of the TCP protocol. This picture is a clear demonstration of the nonlinear response of the router.

Moreover, we found  that RTT times inside a single workstation exhibit usually two peaks in the probability distribution function of RTT times. We performed an analysis of the RTT times of the Unix ping command on the internal network interface

```

ping -i S -s 56 127.0.0.1

```

where $`S`$ is the interval in seconds between two consecutive ping packets of the size of 56 bytes (the ping packet contains also 8 additional bytes, i.e. the total packet size is 64 bytes). We vary interval $`S`$ and accumulate data for $`S=1`$, $`10`$, $`20`$ and $`50`$ seconds. Figure 2 shows histograms $`P(t_R)`$ of RTT times calculated in intervals of $`0.004`$ $`ms`$. This histograms were obtained from the results of 50000 pings grouped in 5 groups and then averaged. Fluctuations from one group to another are small enough.

All histograms have two peaks, placed at about $`t_R^{(1)}=1.281.29`$ $`ms`$ and $`t_R^{(2)}=1.351.36`$ $`ms`$. For the pings with interval $`S=1`$ $`s`$ there are higher probabilities that measured RTT time will be about $`t_R^{(1)}`$. For the pings with interval $`S=50`$ $`s`$ this probability is higher at the value of about $`t_R^{(2)}`$. For the intermediate interval between pings $`S=20`$ $`s`$ both peaks have approximately the same height, and the result of the measurement of $`t_R^{(1)}`$ or $`t_R^{(2)}`$ will be equally probable.

It is better to plot RTT times ranked ascendingly as shown on Figure 3. Changing the axes and their directions one could find that this curve after normalization is nothing but a cumulative distribution function of RTT times. In fact, the curves in Figure 2 could be obtained from Figure 3 with proper differentiation. Figures 2-3 clearly demonstrate that by varying the interval between pings we have some kind of “first-order phase transition” between states characterised by RTT time values $`t_R^{(1)}`$ and $`t_R^{(2)}`$. It is not a true phase transition because we could not associate any order parameter with the process.

The effect we found is stable and reproducible. We obtain the same behaviour for the number of Unix workstations of different types disconnected from the network and not running any processes except minimal configurations. The only difference is the values of $`t_R^{(1)}`$ and $`t_R^{(2)}`$ RTT times and the interval $`S`$ times. So, this effect could be considered as the universal one.

We associate this effect with the cache memory organization. It seems that the difference between the values of $`t_R^{(2)}`$ and $`t_R^{(1)}`$ is the time necessary to upload the ping process to the cache memory. Unix systems were running some processes which could oust ping procedure from the cache and thus increase the RTT time. A detailed analysis will be published elsewhere  as well the the model of the process.

We analysed the power spectrum of the RTT signals  and found that in all cases it could be approximated with the $`1/f^\alpha `$ law with $`\alpha =2`$ for the low frequencies and demonstrated white noise at the high frequencies. Nevertheless, this analysis has to be considered with more caution; we found in one measurement that just one fluctuation in RTT time which gives $`t_R=106`$ $`ms`$ obtained in any experiment with $`S=50`$ $`s`$ has changed our power spectrum drastically. Excluding this enormous fluctuation all results are very stable and reproducible.

## 4 Discussion

We have to note that the effect of first-order phase transition which we found to be the influence of the cache memory, could be even more universal. In fact, all servers usually use cache memory, and the effect of the higher productivity of the servers  under the heavy load could be explained as an effect of the heavy cache memory usage as well.

Most of the models of Internet traffic are based on the assumption that the routers are nothing but queues. It seems that this is not always the case and more sophisticated nonlinear models of the elements of the network should be considered. Most of the nodes which are just single routers nowdays consist of several devices which separately work as switches, or routers, or name servers, or proxy-cache servers with rather complicated intercommunications and interactions.

Thanks are due to Serge Krashakov and Timofey Rostunov for help and discussions. This work is supported by the twin research program of the Landau Institute and the Ecole Normale Supérieure de Paris and by RFBR under projects 99-07-18412, 99-07-90084, and 01-07-90119.


text:
# References

The origin of the observed baryon asymmetry, the ratio of the baryon density to the entropy density

$`Y_B={\displaystyle \frac{n_Bn_{\overline{B}}}{s}}=(0.61)\times 10^{10},`$
is one of the major problems in cosmology. Various scenarios of baryogenesis have been discussed , and leptogenesis   is one of the attractive scenarios. Providing $`U(1)_{BL}`$ breaking in the original theory, lepton number is generated through the CP-violating out-of-equilibrium decay of the right-handed Majorana neutrinos. A part of this lepton number is converted into the baryon number via the (B+L) violating sphaleron process being in thermal equilibrium . As a result, the baryon asymmetry in the universe is generated.

The leptogenesis is also an interesting scenario in the following point of view. Amount of the generated lepton asymmetry (baryon asymmetry) is related to the neutrino Dirac mass matrix, and thus related to neutrino oscillation data  through the see-saw mechanism  which naturally explains the smallness of the neutrino masses. For detailed discussion, some concrete models are necessary. There have been many works on the models of neutrino mass matrix, where the relationship between the neutrino oscillation data and the observed baryon asymmetry are discussed in detail.

While the conventional leptogenesis scenario has been discussed for one Higgs doublet model, in this letter, we study the leptogenesis in the models with (up-type) multi-Higgs doublets. In multi-Higgs models, one-to-one correspondence between the Yukawa couplings and the neutrino Dirac mass matrix is no longer valid. This fact leads to new possible scenario of the leptogenesis, where the washing-out process through the dimension five interactions plays the crucial role for the resultant baryon asymmetry. Since the effect of this washing-out process has not been considered seriously, the scenario is worth investigating.

Let us first briefly review the conventional leptogenesis scenario. In the following, our discussion is always based on the effective Lagrangian at energies lower than the right-handed neutrino masses such that

$`_N=h_{ij}\overline{l_{L,i}}\varphi N_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\overline{N_i^C}M_iN_i+h.c.,`$
where $`i,j=1,2,3`$ denote the generation indeces, $`h`$ is the Yukawa coupling, $`l_L`$ and $`\varphi `$ are the lepton and the Higgs doublets, respectively, and $`M_i`$ is the lepton-number-violating mass term of the right-handed neutrino $`N_i`$ (we are working on the basis of the right-handed neutrino mass eigenstates). For simplicity, we assume the hierarchy among the right-handed neutrino masses, $`M_1M_2M_3`$, in the following.

The lepton asymmetry in the universe is generated by CP-violating out-of-equilibrium decay of the heavy neutrinos, $`Nl_L\overline{\varphi }`$ and $`N\overline{l_L}\varphi `$. The leading contribution is given by the interference between the tree level and one-loop level decay amplitudes, and the CP-violating parameter is found to be 111 Through out this letter, our notations are all based on Ref. .

$`ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi (h^{}h)_{11}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\text{Im}\left[(h^{}h)_{1j}^2\right]\left\{f(M_j^2/M_1^2)+2g(M_j^2/M_1^2)\right\}.`$ (1)
Here $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$ correspond to the vertex and the wave function corrections,

$`f(x)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{x}\left[1(1+x)\text{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+x}{x}}\right)\right],`$
$`g(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{x}}{2(1x)}},`$ (2)
respectively, and both are reduced to $`\frac{1}{2\sqrt{x}}`$ for $`x1`$. We have assumed that the lightest $`N_1`$ decay dominantly contributes to the resultant lepton asymmetry. In fact, this is confirmed by numerical analysis in the case of hierarchical right-handed neutrino masses . Using the above $`ϵ`$, the generated $`Y_B`$ is described as

$`Y_B{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{g_{}}}d,`$ (3)
where $`g_{}100`$ is the effective degrees of freedom in the universe at $`TM_1`$, and $`d1`$ is so-called the dilution factor. This factor parameterizes how the naively expected value $`Y_Bϵ/g_{}`$ is reduced by washing-out processes.

We can classify the washing-out processes into two cases with and without the external leg of the heavy right-handed neutrinos, respectively. The former includes the inverse-decay process and the lepton-number-violating scatterings mediated by the Higgs boson  such as $`N+\overline{l_L}\overline{q_R}+q_L`$, where $`q_L`$ and $`q_R`$ are quark doublet and singlet, respectively. The latter case is the one induced by the effective dimension five interaction,

$`_N{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{M}}ll\varphi \varphi ,`$ (4)
after integrating out the heavy right-handed neutrinos. Here we have described the interaction symbolically omitting the generation indeces. This term is nothing but the one providing the see-saw mechanism . The importance of this interaction was discussed in , where the interaction was shown to be necessary to avoid the false generation of the lepton asymmetry in thermal equilibrium. While numerical calculations   are necessary in order to evaluate the dilution factor precisely, $`Y_Bϵ/g_{}`$ roughly gives a correct answer, and the washing-out process is mostly not so effective. Note that this is the consequence from the current neutrino oscillation data as explained in the following.

The condition for a washing-out process to be effective is roughly given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM_1)H(TM_1)\sqrt{g_{}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2}{M_P}},`$ (5)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes the decay width or the thermal-averaged cross section times number density for the lepton-number-violating scatterings, $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter, and $`M_P10^{19}`$ GeV is the Planck mass. This condition leads to the lower bound on the light Majorana neutrino mass eigenvalues.222 See Eqs. (24) and (25) for more precise evaluation.  For simplicity, let us assume $`(h^{}h)_{ii}v^2/M_i=(m_D^{}m_D)_{ii}/M_im_{\nu i}`$ through the see-saw mechanism, where $`v=174`$ GeV is the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the Higgs doublet, and $`m_{\nu i}`$ is the mass eigenvalue of the light Majorana neutrino in the $`i`$-th generation.

Considering that the (inverse) decay width is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Dc(h^{}h)_{11}M_1cm_{\nu 1}M_1^2/v^2,`$ (6)
where $`c10^2`$ is the phase space factor, we can find $`m_{\nu 1}𝒪(10^3\text{eV})`$. Although estimation for the Higgs mediated scatterings is much more complicated, we obtain the similar result. To evaluate the condition for the washing-out process due to the dimension five interaction needs knowledge of the flavor structure in the neutrino sector. For simplicity, assume that the dominant contributions are coming from each single $`N_i`$ exchange for $`i`$ fixed. In this case, we find the cross section

$`\sigma c{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(h^{}h)_{ii}^2/M_i^2c{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}m_{\nu i}^2/v^4,`$ (7)
and the thermal-averaged cross section times number density is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM_1)\sigma M_1^3`$. This leads to the bound such as $`_im_{\nu i}^2𝒪(\text{eV}^2)\left(\frac{10^{10}\text{GeV}}{M_1}\right)`$. Note that this result is incompatible with the neutrino oscillation data  in the case of hierarchical light neutrino masses, since $`_im_{\nu i}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^210^3\text{eV}^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ is the neutrino oscillation parameter relevant for the atmospheric neutrino anomaly. For the degenerate case it may be allowed, but may have a conflict with the constraint $`_im_{\nu i}1.8`$ eV due to observations of the large scale structures in the present universe . The possibility $`M_110^{10}`$ GeV would be unlikely in the view point of the re-heating temperature of the inflationary universe. The condition for the inverse-decay can be consistent with the neutrino oscillation data, and can be effective. In this case, there is the useful approximation formula : $`d1/(k(\text{log}k)^{0.6})`$ for $`k>1`$, where $`k\mathrm{\Gamma }_D/H(M_1)`$. Considering the relation $`d1/k1/m_{\nu 1}`$, the neutrino oscillation data and the cosmological constraint, we can expect $`d10^3`$. As a result, both of the washing-out processes are not so important for the resultant baryon asymmetry in the conventional leptogenesis scenario.

Now let us study how the above conclusion is changed in models with the multi-Higgs doublets. For simplicity, we consider the model with two up-type Higgs doublets, $`H_1^u`$ and $`H_2^u`$. This simple model includes all the essential points of our discussion. The Dirac neutrino mass matrix is written by the sum of two Higgs doublets $`H_i^u`$,

$`m_D=h_1H_1^u+h_2H_2^u=(h_1\text{cos}\beta +h_2\text{sin}\beta )v,`$ (8)
where $`v`$ and $`\beta `$ are defined as $`v^2=H_1^u^2+H_2^u^2`$ and $`\text{tan}\beta =H_2^u/H_1^u`$, respectively. In the following analysis, we take $`v=174`$ GeV as in the conventional scenario, for definiteness. It is straightforward to extend all the formulas necessary in the leptogenesis scenario to the ones in the multi-Higgs case. For example, the CP-violating parameter Eq. (1) is modified to be the sum of

$`ϵ_a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi (h_a^{}h_a)_{11}}}{\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\text{Im}\left[(h_a^{}h_b)_{1j}(h_b^{}h_a)_{1j}+2(h_a^{}h_a)_{1j}(h_b^{}h_b)_{1j}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{M_j}{M_1}}`$ (9)
for $`M_1M_j`$, where the first (second) term corresponds to the vertex (wave function) correction. The crucial modification in the multi-Higgs models is that the direct relation between the Yukawa couplings and the Dirac mass matrix to be compared with the experimental data is no longer valid, because of the new parameter $`\beta `$ introduced. Even if the mass matrices, $`h_1H_1^u`$ and $`h_2H_2^u`$, are fixed by some predictive model and/or experiments, there is still freedom to change the Yukawa couplings according to $`\beta `$. Since general discussion about the multi-Higgs case is very complicated, we assume that $`h_1H_1^uh_2H_2^u`$ and $`h_1h_2`$ to make the essential point of our discussion clear. These assumption reduces our formulas to the one in the conventional scenario with identification $`h=h_2`$. However, note that the quantity defined as $`\overline{m}_D=hv`$ is not the Dirac mass to be compared with the experiments, and no longer suffer from the neutrino oscillation data. To avoid confusion, we use the notation, $`(h^{}h)_{ii}v^2/M_i=(\overline{m}_D^{}\overline{m}_D)_{ii}/M_i\overline{m}_{\nu i}`$, in the following. Note again that $`\overline{m}_{\nu _i}`$ is not the physical mass eigenvalue.

In the conventional scenario, the direct correspondence between the Yukawa coupling and the Dirac mass matrix allows us to describe the CP-violating parameter as

$`ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi (m_D^{}m_D)_{11}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\text{Im}\left[(m_D^{}m_D)_{1j}^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{M_j}{M_1}}.`$ (10)
by using the Dirac mass matrix. Suppose that $`m_D`$ is fixed by some mass matrix models and/or experiments, we can evaluate $`ϵ`$. The resultant $`ϵ`$ and $`Y_Bϵ/g_{}`$ may reveal a large discrepancy against the observed baryon asymmetry. However, note that, in our case, the above formula is modified as $`ϵϵ/\text{sin}^2\beta `$ through $`m_D\overline{m}_D=m_D/\text{sin}\beta `$. Therefore, in the case with too small $`ϵ`$, we can easily reproduce the observed baryon asymmetry by adjusting small $`\mathrm{sin}\beta `$ appropriately. This is the straightforward consequence according to the introduction of new free parameter $`\beta `$. On the other hand, if $`ϵ`$ is too large, there seems to be no hope to obtain the baryon asymmetry consistent with the observation. However, we will show that, in this case, the washing-out processes can play an important role so as to reduce the resultant $`Y_B`$ to the observed values. Since we no longer suffer from the neutrino oscillation data, the Yukawa coupling $`h=h_2`$ can be taken to be large enough for the washing-out process to become very effective. This is a new scenario in the leptogenesis which has neither been considered seriously nor be able to be realized in the conventional scenario because of the constraints from the neutrino oscillation data.

Now let us discuss the washing-out processes in detail by integrating the Boltzmann equations out. In the conventional scenario, numerical analysis have been done in detail  , and all the quantities we need in this analysis are collected there. Thus, we do not discuss about derivations of formulas etc. in this letter. All our formulas are based on Ref. . We are interested in the parameter region where the washing-out processes are effective. Although the conventional analysis has been performed also on this parameter region, it has not been seriously taken into account, because of the incompatibility with the neutrino oscillation data as discussed above.

The Boltzmann equations are written by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dY_{N_1}}{dz}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{sH(M_1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{eq}}}1\right)\gamma _D,`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dY_{BL}}{dz}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{sH(M_1)}}\left[\left\{ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{eq}}}1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{BL}}{Y_l^{eq}}}\right\}\gamma _{D_1}+2{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{BL}}{Y_l^{eq}}}\left(\gamma _N+\gamma _{Nt}\right)\right],`$ (12)
where $`z=M_1/T`$, and $`s`$ is the entropy density. Here $`\gamma _D`$ is given by

$`\gamma _Dn_{N_1}^{eq}{\displaystyle \frac{K_1(z)}{K_2(z)}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D`$ (13)
with the usual decay width of $`N_1`$ in the rest system,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D={\displaystyle \frac{(h^{}h)_{11}}{8\pi }}M_1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_{\nu 1}}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2}{v^2}},`$ (14)
the modified Bessel functions $`K_i`$, and the number density $`n_{N_1}^{eq}=M_1^3/(\pi ^2z)K_2(z)`$. Here $`\gamma _N`$ ($`\gamma _{Nt}`$) corresponds to the lepton-number-violating scattering process $`l\varphi l\varphi `$ ($`ll\varphi \varphi `$) through the effective dimension five interaction of Eq. (4). We have omitted the Higgs mediated processes for simplicity. These processes have an effect similar to that of the inverse-decay, since both are classified in the same washing-out process with the $`N_1`$ external leg and have amplitudes proportional to $`(h^{}h)_{11}`$. For two body scattering, $`\gamma `$ is given by

$`\gamma (a,bi,j)={\displaystyle \frac{T}{64\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle _{(m_a+m_b)^2}^{\mathrm{}}}ds\widehat{\sigma }(s)\sqrt{s}K_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{T}}\right),`$ (15)
with the reduced cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }(s)`$. Assuming, again, that the dominant contribution is due to the single $`N_i`$ exchange for fixed $`i`$, the sum of the reduced cross section for the scattering $`l\varphi l\varphi `$ and $`ll\varphi \varphi `$ is given by

$`\widehat{\sigma }_{N+Nt}(s)=\widehat{\sigma }_N(s)+\widehat{\sigma }_{Nt}(s){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{m}_D^{}\overline{m}_D)_{jj}^2}{v^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_j^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_{\nu 3}^2}{v^4}}s.`$ (16)
Here, we have further assumed the hierarchy $`\overline{m}_{\nu 1,2}\overline{m}_{\nu 3}`$ for simplicity. This also means that the washing-out process mediated by $`N_3`$ is dominant. Substituting the reduced cross section into Eq. (15), we obtain

$`\gamma _{N+Nt}=\gamma _N+\gamma _{Nt}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_{\nu 3}^2M_1^6}{v^4}}z^6.`$ (17)
This result is a good approximation for the region $`M_ZTM_1M_3`$ which we are interested in, where $`M_Z`$ is the Z-boson mass.

Now we are ready to numerically analyze the Boltzmann equations. Given $`ϵ`$, $`\overline{m}_{\nu 1}`$ and $`\overline{m}_{\nu 3}`$, the Boltzmann equations can be easily integrated out. For very small $`\overline{m}_{\nu 1}`$ and $`\overline{m}_{\nu 3}`$, we can find $`Y_{BL}ϵ/g_{}`$. Our interest is on the parameter region where the washing-out processes play the important roles. Now we are free from the neutrino oscillation data, and can take large input values for $`\overline{m}_{\nu 1}`$ and $`\overline{m}_{\nu 3}`$. Let us consider two spacial cases. One is that the washing-out process through the inverse-decay is dominant. This case has been taken into account in the previous works with the range of the resultant dilution factor $`d10^3`$. The other is that the resultant $`Y_{BL}`$ is dramatically reduced by the washing-out through the dimension five interactions. For each cases, $`Y_{BL}`$ is depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively, as a function of $`\text{Log}_{10}(z)`$.333 The region of the Yukawa couplings in the first case is limited. For large Yukawa couplings, the washing-out process through the dimension five interactions usually becomes important, and dominates (see Eqs.(27) and (28), and compare them).  Here, we have taken the input parameter $`ϵ=10^3`$ as an example. The resultant dilution factor $`d`$ is independent of this input in this numerical analysis. We can see that there is the dramatic reduction of the resultant baryon number in each graph.

There are useful approximation formulas for two cases discussed above. The Boltzmann equation of Eq. (12) can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dY_{BL}}{dz}}+P(z)Y_{BL}=Q(z),`$ (18)
where

$`P(z)={\displaystyle \frac{z}{sH(M_1)Y_l^{eq}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _D+2\gamma _{N+Nt}\right)P_D(z)+P_N(z)`$ (19)
with

$`P_D(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_{\nu 1}M_1^2}{32\pi H(M_1)v^2}}z^3K_1(z),`$ (20)
$`P_N(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\overline{m}_{\nu 3}^2M_1^3}{4\pi ^3H(M_1)v^4}}z^2,`$ (21)
and

$`Q(z)=ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{z}{sH(M_1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{eq}}}1\right)\gamma _D.`$ (22)
Here we have used $`sY_l^{eq}=\frac{2}{\pi ^2}M^3z^3`$. The solution of the above Boltzmann equation with the initial condition $`Y_{BL}(0)=0`$ is given by

$`Y_{BL}(z)={\displaystyle _0^z}𝑑xQ(x)e^{_x^zP(y)𝑑y}`$ (23)
with the solution of Eq. (11). We can find that $`Y_{BL}(\mathrm{})ϵ/g_{}`$ if $`P(z)1`$.

Noting that the out-of-equilibrium decay begins roughly at $`TM_1`$, the condition $`P(1)1`$ gives a reasonable condition for the washing-out processes to be effective. For the above two cases, we can obtain the conditions on the light neutrino mass eigenvalues such that

$`P_D(1)1`$ $``$ $`\overline{m}_{\nu 1}4\times 10^3\text{eV},`$ (24)
$`P_N(1)1`$ $``$ $`\overline{m}_{\nu 3}2\text{eV}\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^{10}\text{GeV}}{M_1}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (25)
These results are in good agreement with the numerical calculations as can be seen in Fig 1 and 2.

The washing-out processes play the important roles in the case $`P(1)1`$. Using the method of the steepest decent in Eq. (23), we can find

$`Y_{BL}(\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{g_{}}}a^{1/2}z_f^{3/2}\text{exp}\left[z_f{\displaystyle _{z_f}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑zP(z)\right],`$ (26)
where $`a=dP(z)/dz|_{z=z_f}(>0)`$ with $`z_f`$ defined as $`P(z_f)=1`$. In the first case, $`P_D(1)1`$ but $`P_N(1)1`$, it is difficult to obtain a simple formula because of the Bessel function in $`P_D(z)`$. Although we can find a rough formula $`Y_{BL}1/k`$, more reasonable fitting formula is known such as

$`Y_{BL}(\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{g_{}}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{0.1}{k(\text{ln}k)^{0.6}}}`$ (27)
with $`kP_D(1)`$. In the other case, $`P_D(1)1`$ but $`P_N(1)1`$, analytic calculation is possible by using Eq. (21), and the approximation formula is found to be

$`Y_{BL}(\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{g_{}}}\times \mathrm{\Delta }\text{exp}\left(2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)`$ (28)
with

$`\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{3\overline{m}_{\nu 3}^2M_1^3}{4\pi ^3H(M_1)v^4}}.`$ (29)
We can check that the both formulas give good approximations compared to the numerical results.

We have learned that there is the parameter region where the washing-out processes become important. Here, remember that $`ϵ`$ is the function of the Yukawa couplings and becomes large according to the power law, $`ϵh^2`$. In the case $`P_D(1)1`$ but $`P_N(1)1`$, from Eq. (27), we can expect that the resultant baryon number is saturated to a constant, as Yukawa coupling becomes large. On the other hand, in the case $`P_N(1)1`$ but $`P_D(1)1`$, Eq. (28) leads to the conclusion that the resultant baryon number becomes an exponentially decreasing function of the (large) Yukawa couplings. This implies that, even if the parameter $`ϵ/g_{}`$ itself is too large to be consistent with the observation, new parameter region of large Yukawa couplings comes out, so that the observed baryon number can be reproduced. This is a new interesting scenario.

In summary, we have studied the leptogenesis scenario in models with multi-Higgs doublets. In our scenario, the direct correspondence between the Yukawa coupling and the mass matrix is lost. As a result, new parameter region can be consistent with the neutrino oscillation data. We have pointed out the importance of the washing-out process which has not been seriously taken into account in the conventional scenario. We found a new parameter region of the large Yukawa couplings which can reproduce the observed baryon number through the exponential dumping of too large CP-violating parameter $`ϵ`$ due to the washing-out processes through the dimension five interactions .

Finally, we give a comment on the application of our scenario to some neutrino mass matrix models. Many models of the Majorana neutrinos with the see-saw mechanism have been proposed, which predict and/or reproduce the observed neutrino properties. When the leptogenesis scenario is taken into account in such models, some of them may predict too large baryon asymmetry to be consistent with the observations. This is very problematic in cosmology.444 If we assume that the re-heating temperature of the inflationary universe is lower than the right-handed neutrino masses, this problem can be easily avoided. However, the leptogenesis no longer works.  However, if such a model is the multi-Higgs doublet model, the scenario we have discussed in this letter is applicable and can make the model viable. Further discussion needs a concrete model, and such a model is worth investigating.

The authors would like to thank Rabindra Mohapatra and Markus Luty for useful discussions.


text:
# Second Order Corrections to Weak Lensing by Large-Scale Structure

## 1. Introduction

As experiments that measure the distortion induced in distant galaxy images by weak gravitational lensing from the large-scale structure of the universe (e.g., Blandford et al  1991; Miralda-Escudé  1991; Kaiser  1992) move from the current discovery phase (Bacon et al  2000; Kaiser et al  2000; Wittman et al  2000; Van Waerbeke et al  2000) into the precision measurement phase, it will become increasingly important to quantify and separate subtle cosmological, astrophysical and instrumental effects that alter the statistics of the lensing observables.

Current predictions of weak lensing statistics and their utility in measuring fundamental cosmological parameters are based on several assumptions. In this Letter, we discuss two of these assumptions and the extent of their validity for calculations of the power spectra of the shear and convergence. In the so-called Born approximation, one integrates the lensing distortion over the unperturbed photon paths. We relax this assumption using the transverse deflection as a perturbative parameter. We show that the correction to the Born approximation results in a generation of curl, or magnetic-like, $`B`$-modes in the weak lensing shear. Absent in first order lensing contributions, $`B`$-modes are often used as a monitor of subtle systematic errors in the data. Indeed, data from the current generation of surveys routinely show $`B`$-modes in the shear field (e.g. Pen et al  2002). It will be important for future surveys to know the level at which lensing itself produces $`B`$-modes.

An additional assumption is the neglect of the coupling between lenses at two different redshifts. Unlike the correction to the Born approximation, the lens-lens coupling results in both $`B`$-mode generation and a net rotation of galaxy images. Since the rotational effect has been measured in numerical simulations (Jain et al  2000), it provides a check on the validity of our perturbative technique.

The physical mechanism behind the two corrections discussed in the present paper were first considered by Bernardeau et al  (1997) and Schneider et al  (1998). In both these studies, these two second order corrections were discussed as a possible contribution to the three point statistics of weak lensing. The correction to the weak lensing convergence skewness, however, is below a few percent. In this paper, we concentrate on the two point statistics which requires a third order expansion in the potential to complete a second order expansion in the power.

For illustrative purposes, we calculate these higher order effects for a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology throughout, with parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.65`$, $`h=0.65`$, $`n=1`$, $`\delta _H=4.2\times 10^5`$ and no tensor contribution.

## 2. Statistical Properties

In this section, we define the statistical properties of the lensing observables in angular Fourier space. In general, we can write the weak lensing deformation matrix that maps between the source (S) and image (I) planes, $`\delta x_i^\mathrm{S}=A_{ij}\delta x_j^\mathrm{I}`$, as

$`𝐀=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\kappa \gamma _1& \gamma _2\omega \\ \gamma _2+\omega & 1\kappa +\gamma _1\end{array}\right),`$ (3)
where all components are functions of position on the sky $`𝐧`$. Here, $`\kappa `$ is the convergence and $`\gamma _i`$ are the two shear components and $`\omega `$, the antisymmetric component induces a rotation in the images (e.g., Bartelmann & Schneider  2000 and Mellier  1999 for recent reviews). The deformation component may be isolated as

$$\psi _{ab}(𝐧)=\delta _{ab}A_{ab}(𝐧).$$
(4)
Following Kaiser  (1998), we define the Fourier representation of the deformation under the flat-sky approximation

$$\psi _{ab}(𝐥)=𝑑𝐧e^{i𝐥𝐧}\psi _{ab}(𝐧).$$
(5)
Statistical homogeneity requires that its two-point correlation satisfy

$$\psi _{ab}^{}(𝐥)\psi _{cd}(𝐥^{})=(2\pi )^2\delta (𝐥𝐥^{})C_{abcd}(𝐥).$$
(6)
The various components of $`C_{abcd}`$ define the two point statistical properties of the lensing observables. It is useful first to reexpress the shear components of $`\psi _{ab}(𝐥)`$ in terms of the coordinate-free $`E`$ and $`B`$ mode representation (see, e.g. Stebbins  1996; Kamionkowski et al  1998; Hu & White  2001)

$`ϵ(𝐥)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _l\gamma _1(𝐥)+\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _l\gamma _2(𝐥),`$
$`\beta (𝐥)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _l\gamma _2(𝐥)\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _l\gamma _1(𝐥).`$ (7)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _l=𝐥\widehat{𝐱}_1`$ where $`\widehat{𝐱}_1`$ is one of the orthogonal directions on the sky.

The power and cross spectra of the observable fields $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ $`=\kappa `$, $`ϵ`$, $`\beta `$, $`\omega `$ are defined as

$`\alpha ^{}(𝐥)\beta (𝐥^{})(2\pi )^2\delta (𝐥𝐥^{})C_l^{\alpha \beta }.`$ (8)
Since the power spectra are functions of the magnitude of $`𝐥`$ only, one can take $`𝐥𝐱_1`$ to simplify calculations of the power spectrum without loss of generality. With this restriction, $`\varphi _l=0`$ and we obtain for the power spectra

$`C_l^{\kappa \kappa }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[C_{1111}+2C_{1122}+C_{2222}],`$
$`C_l^{ϵϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[C_{1111}2C_{1122}+C_{2222}],`$
$`C_l^{\beta \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[C_{1212}+2C_{1221}+C_{2121}],`$
$`C_l^{\omega \omega }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[C_{1212}2C_{1221}+C_{2121}],`$
and similarly for the cross spectra. Cross spectra between $`\kappa `$ or $`ϵ`$ with $`\beta `$ or $`\omega `$ vanish if the statistical properties are invariant under inversion of the coordinates.

## 3. Calculational Technique

It remains to evaluate the deformation power spectrum $`C_{abcd}`$ to second order in perturbation theory. The deformation tensor for sources at a single redshift is given implicitly by (see e.g. Schneider et al  1998)

$$\psi _{ab}(𝐧,\chi _s)=2𝑑\chi g(\chi ,\chi _s)\mathrm{\Phi }_{,ac}(𝐱;\chi )[\delta _{cb}+\psi _{cb}(𝐧,\chi )],$$
(9)
where commas represents spatial derivatives. Repeated indices are summed over the 2 transverse directions. The presence of $`\psi `$ in the integral reflects a foreground lens affecting the deformation from a more distant lens - or “lens-lens coupling”. The lensing efficiency is

$`g(\chi ^{},\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_A(\chi ^{})d_A(\chi \chi ^{})}{d_A(\chi )}},\chi ^{}<\chi ,`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`0,\chi ^{}\chi .`$
Here the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is evaluated at a deflected position111Formally $`d_A(\chi )𝐧d_A(\chi )𝐧_{}+\chi 𝐧_{}`$ in an open universe but components parallel to the fiducial line of sight drop out in the Limber approximation.

$`𝐱(𝐧,\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`𝐧d_A(\chi )+\delta 𝐱(𝐧,\chi ),`$
$`\delta x_a(𝐧,\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle 𝑑\chi ^{}g(\chi ^{},\chi )\frac{d_A(\chi )}{d_A(\chi ^{})}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,a}(𝐱;\chi ^{})},`$ (11)
where the deflections are confined to the transverse plane and $`\chi `$ is the conformal distance or lookback time, from the observer, given by

$$\chi (z)=_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{H(z^{})},$$
(12)
and the analogous angular diameter distance

$$d_A(\chi )=H_0^1\mathrm{\Omega }_K^{1/2}\mathrm{sinh}(H_0\mathrm{\Omega }_K^{1/2}\chi ),$$
(13)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K=1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ as the space curvature parameter. We will occasionally suppress the radial/temporal argument $`\chi `$ where no confusion will arise.

The familiar form of the lensing observables comes about by keeping only first order terms in the potential. In other words, they are calculated under the so-called Born approximation where the potential is evaluated on the undeflected path and with the neglect of lens-lens coupling. Higher order corrections can then be calculated by iterative correction of $`𝐱`$ and $`\psi _{ab}`$ in Eq. (9).

We shall see that in general the deformation may be expressed as a line-of-sight projection of a source field

$$\psi _{ab}(𝐧)=2𝑑\chi g(\chi ,\chi _s)S_{ab}(𝐧d_A;\chi ),$$
(14)
whose power spectrum may be evaluated under the Limber approximation (Kaiser  1992) from the power spectrum of the source field

$`S_{ab}^{}(𝐥;\chi )S_{cd}(𝐥^{};\chi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^2\delta (𝐥𝐥^{})\delta (\chi \chi ^{})`$ (15)
$`\times d_A(\chi )^6P_{abcd}(𝐥;\chi ),`$
to be

$$C_{abcd}(𝐥)=4𝑑\chi \frac{g^2(\chi ,\chi _s)}{d_A^6(\chi )}P_{abcd}(𝐥;\chi ).$$
(16)
For the first order term $`S_{ab}^{(1)}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{,ab}`$ and

$$P_{abcd}^{(11)}=l_al_bl_cl_dP_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(\frac{l}{d_A}\right),$$
(17)
where $`P_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}(k)`$ is the spatial power spectrum of the potential fluctuations evaluated under the non-linear scaling relations for the density power spectrum (Peacock & Dodds  1996).

As discussed in the previous section, one may evaluate the power spectra of the observables under the constraint $`l_1=l`$ and $`l_2=0`$, from which one immediately obtains

$`C_l^{\kappa \kappa _{11}}=l^4{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _s}}𝑑\chi {\displaystyle \frac{g^2(\chi ,\chi _s)}{d_A(\chi )^6}}P_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}({\displaystyle \frac{l}{d_A(\chi )}};\chi ),`$ (18)
and $`C_l^{ϵϵ_{11}}=C_l^{\kappa \kappa _{11}}`$ while $`C_l^{\beta \beta _{11}}=C_l^{\omega \omega _{11}}=0`$. Here the subscripts $`nn`$ denote $`n`$th order term expansion in the potentials. The lack of $`B`$-modes in the signal, to first order in the perturbations, has been considered as a possible test of instrumental and astrophysical systematic effects.

In general if $`S_{ab}`$ is symmetric under interchange of $`a`$ and $`b`$, power spectra involving the rotation $`\omega `$ vanish. If $`P_{abcd}`$ is symmetric under the exchange of all indices then $`C_l^{\kappa \kappa }=C_l^{ϵϵ}+C_l^{\beta \beta }`$. Finally if $`P_{1122}=P_{1221}`$ then $`C_l^{\kappa \kappa }+C_l^{\omega \omega }=C_l^{ϵϵ}+C_l^{\beta \beta }`$. These relationships are useful for checking consistency in the higher order terms.

### 3.1. Born approximation

Corrections to the Born approximation can be calculated by Taylor expanding the potential in Eq. (9) to second order in the deflection of Eq. (11)

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐧d_A+\delta 𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐧d_A)+\delta x_a\mathrm{\Phi }_{,a}(𝐧d_A)`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta x_a\delta x_b\mathrm{\Phi }_{,ab}(𝐧d_A)+\mathrm{}.`$
The last term is effectively third order in the potential but must be kept since it can couple with the first order deformation in the power spectrum. The corrections may be represented as second order and third order source fields

$`S_{ab}^{(2)}(𝐧)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_{,abc}(𝐧d_A)B_c(𝐧),`$
$`S_{ab}^{(3)}(𝐧)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_{,abcd}(𝐧d_A)B_c(𝐧)B_d(𝐧),`$ (20)
with the Born correction

$$B_c(𝐧;\chi )𝑑\chi ^{}g(\chi ^{},\chi )\frac{d_A(\chi )}{d_A(\chi ^{})}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,c}(𝐧d_A(\chi ^{});\chi ^{}).$$
(21)
The second-second order terms in the power spectrum become

$$P_{abcd}^{(22)}=4\frac{d^2l^{}}{(2\pi )^2}l_a^{}l_b^{}l_c^{}l_d^{}(𝐥^{}𝐥^{\prime \prime })^2M(l^{},l^{\prime \prime }),$$
(22)
with $`𝐥^{\prime \prime }=𝐥𝐥^{}`$. The mode coupling integrand is given by

$`M(l,l^{};\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\chi ^{}\frac{g^2(\chi ,\chi ^{})}{d_A^6(\chi ^{})}P_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}(\frac{l^{}}{d_A(\chi ^{})};\chi ^{})}`$ (23)
$`\times P_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}({\displaystyle \frac{l}{d_A(\chi )}};\chi ).`$
In terms of the lensing observables,

$`C_l^{\alpha \beta _{22}}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle 𝑑\chi \frac{g^2(\chi ,\chi _s)}{d_A(\chi )^6}\frac{d^2l^{}}{(2\pi )^2}l^4G_\alpha ^{(22)}G_\beta ^{(22)}}`$ (24)
$`\times (𝐥^{}𝐥^{\prime \prime })^2M(l^{},l^{\prime \prime }).`$
The geometric factors for the specific observables are

$`G_\kappa ^{(22)}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`G_ϵ^{(22)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _l^{},`$
$`G_\beta ^{(22)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _l^{},`$
$`G_\omega ^{(22)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (25)
where we have used the condition $`\varphi _l=0`$. Notice that the parity violating cross terms vanish after integration over the azimuthal angle.

Likewise the first-third order source term becomes

$$P_{abcd}^{(13)}=4l_al_bl_cl_d\frac{d^2l^{}}{(2\pi )^2}(𝐥𝐥^{})^2M(l,l^{}).$$
(26)
Note that there is no mode coupling in the third order term. For the lensing observables,

$`C_l^{\alpha \beta _{13}}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle 𝑑\chi \frac{g^2(\chi ,\chi _s)}{d_A(\chi )^6}\frac{d^2l^{}}{(2\pi )^2}l^4G_\alpha ^{(13)}G_\beta ^{(13)}}`$ (27)
$`\times (𝐥𝐥^{})^2M(l,l^{}),`$
where

$`G_\kappa ^{(13)}`$ $`=`$ $`G_ϵ^{(13)}=1,`$
$`G_\beta ^{(13)}`$ $`=`$ $`G_\omega ^{(13)}=0.`$ (28)
Notice that contributions to the power from modes with $`𝐥^{}=𝐥𝐥^{\prime \prime }𝐥`$ in Eq. $`(22)`$ is cancelled by contributions from Eq. $`(13)`$ for $`\kappa \kappa `$ and $`ϵϵ`$. Finite $`\beta \beta `$ power is generated by the Born corrections but is also highly suppressed geometrically. There is also no contribution to the rotational power from the second order Born approximation. The rotational power spectrum as measured in simulations by Jain et al  (2000) should not be interpreted as a test of the Born approximation.

### 3.2. Lens-Lens coupling

Lens-lens coupling involves the iterative correction of the lensing deformation of distant lenses due to the deformation from foreground lenses in Eq. (9). The second and third order corrections become

$`S_{ab}^{(2)}(𝐧)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{,ac}(𝐧d_A;\chi )`$
$`\times 2{\displaystyle 𝑑\chi ^{}g(\chi ^{},\chi )\mathrm{\Phi }_{,cb}(𝐧d_A(\chi ^{});\chi ^{})},`$
$`S_{ab}^{(3)}(𝐧)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{,ac}(𝐧d_A;\chi )`$ (29)
$`\times 2{\displaystyle 𝑑\chi ^{}g(\chi ^{},\chi )\mathrm{\Phi }_{,cd}(𝐧d_A(\chi ^{});\chi ^{})}`$
$`\times 2{\displaystyle 𝑑\chi ^{\prime \prime }g(\chi ^{\prime \prime },\chi ^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_{,db}(𝐧d_A(\chi ^{\prime \prime });\chi ^{\prime \prime })}.`$
The second-second order terms in the power spectrum become

$$P_{abcd}^{(22)}=4\frac{d^2l^{}}{(2\pi )^2}l_a^{}l_b^{\prime \prime }l_c^{}l_d^{\prime \prime }(𝐥^{}𝐥^{\prime \prime })^2M(l^{},l^{\prime \prime }),$$
(30)
with $`𝐥^{\prime \prime }=𝐥𝐥^{}`$ and recall that the mode coupling integrand was defined in Eq. (23). The first-third order term vanishes under the Limber approximation since lenses at the same redshift cannot lens each other.

The results for the power spectra are

$`C_l^{\alpha \beta _{22}}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle 𝑑\chi \frac{g^2(\chi ,\chi _s)}{d_A(\chi )^6}\frac{d^2l^{}}{(2\pi )^2}l^2l^{\prime \prime 2}G_\alpha ^{(22)}G_\beta ^{(22)}}`$ (31)
$`\times (𝐥^{}𝐥^{\prime \prime })^2M(l^{},l^{\prime \prime }),`$
with the geometric factors

$`G_\kappa ^{(22)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _l^{}\varphi _{l^{\prime \prime }}),`$
$`G_ϵ^{(22)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _l^{}+\varphi _{l^{\prime \prime }}),`$
$`G_\beta ^{(22)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _l^{}+\varphi _{l^{\prime \prime }}),`$
$`G_\omega ^{(22)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _l^{}\varphi _{l^{\prime \prime }}).`$ (32)
Recall we have set $`\varphi _l=0`$. As derived, lens-lens coupling generates power in all the lensing observables. Again, notice that the parity violating terms oscillate leaving negligible contribution after azimuthal integration.

### 3.3. Born-Lens coupling

There are also cross terms between corrections to the Born approximation and lens-lens coupling. The second-second order term follows directly from Eqs. (20) and (29)

$$P_{abcd}^{(22)}=4\frac{d^2l^{}}{(2\pi )^2}(l_a^{}l_b^{}l_c^{}l_d^{\prime \prime }+l_a^{}l_b^{\prime \prime }l_c^{}l_d^{})(𝐥^{}𝐥^{\prime \prime })^2M(l^{},l^{\prime \prime }),$$
(33)
where again $`𝐥^{\prime \prime }=𝐥𝐥^{}`$.

The second-second order terms for the lensing observables are likewise simply related to the pure Born and lens-lens corrections

$`C_l^{\kappa \kappa _{22}}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle 𝑑\chi \frac{g^2(\chi ,\chi _s)}{d_A(\chi )^6}\frac{d^2l^{}}{(2\pi )^2}l^3l^{\prime \prime }G_\alpha ^{(22)}G_\beta ^{(22)}}`$ (34)
$`\times (𝐥^{}𝐥^{\prime \prime })^2M(l^{},l^{\prime \prime }),`$
where the geometric factors are simply products of the individual Born (B) and lens-lens (LL) factors

$`G_\alpha ^{(22)}G_\beta ^{(22)}=G_\alpha ^{(22)}|_\mathrm{B}G_\beta ^{(22)}|_{\mathrm{LL}}+G_\alpha ^{(22)}|_{\mathrm{LL}}G_\beta ^{(22)}|_\mathrm{B},`$ (35)
given in Eqns. (25) and (32).

For the third order term

$`S_{ab}^{(3)}(𝐧)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_{,acd}(𝐧d_A)B_d(𝐧)`$ (36)
$`\times 2{\displaystyle 𝑑\chi ^{}g(\chi ^{},\chi )\mathrm{\Phi }_{,cb}(𝐧d_A(\chi ^{});\chi ^{})},`$
and

$$P_{abcd}^{(13)}=16\frac{d^2l^{}}{(2\pi )^2}(l_al_bl_cl_d^{}+l_al_b^{}l_cl_d)(𝐥𝐥^{})^2M(l,l^{}).$$
(37)
This implies that all power spectra of lensing observables vanish after integration over the azimuthal angle $`\varphi _l^{}`$.

## 4. Results & Discussion

Here, we presented a general discussion of the accuracy of first order calculations of statistical properties of weak lensing by large-scale structure. Using a perturbative approach to third order in transverse displacements, we calculated the leading order corrections to angular power spectra of the shear and convergence that results from dropping the Born approximation. We also considered the coupling between lenses at two different redshifts in its contribution to the power spectra of lensing observables. Both effects generate power in the $`B`$-mode shear which places an ultimate limit on its use as a monitor of systematics or for the search for weak lensing by gravitational waves. In addition, lens-lens coupling results in a net rotation of the background galaxy images.

In Fig. 1, we summarize our results and show the total contribution to the lensing observables at the second order level in power from corrections involving the Born approximation and lens-lens couplings. As shown, these corrections are at least two orders of magnitude below the power in the convergence, or $`E`$-mode shear, at the first order level. While these corrections are larger than cosmic variance at $`\mathrm{}100`$, they are unlikely to affect the interpretation of the next generation of surveys. Our analytical calculations are consistent with previous numerical estimates: the rotational power spectrum generated by the coupling between two lenses agree with numerical measurements by Jain et al  (2000). These results also validate the use of current large scale structure weak lensing predictions for cosmological studies. The relatively small contribution to the lensing observables suggest that higher order corrections related to the Born approximation and coupling between two lenses are unlikely to affect the current estimates of weak lensing statistics and place only very mild limitations on the use of $`B`$-modes as a monitor of systematics in future surveys.

Acknowledgments: WH was supported by NASA NAG5-10840 and the DOE OJI program. AC was supported by the Sherman Fairchild foundation and the DOE. We thank Marc Kamionkowski for useful discussions.